Somewhat Scientific Thoughts on the Origin and the Age of the Earth and on Evolution

by Hans Waetjen
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 1, March 1993

There is an immense difference between the biblical record of creation and man’s current understanding of evolution. In today’s society, few people accept the biblical explanation for creation. Furthermore, current public school teaching on the origin of life and on the age and origin of the earth directly contradicts the biblical account. In fact, if our kids tried to defend their biblical understanding of creation at school, they would probably be ridiculed. Public schools teach concepts totally contrary to the bible record concerning who we are and where we came from. Even if our kids
reject only a small part of biblical teaching because of what they learn in school, isn’t there a danger that this could lead to them starting to doubt other biblical information, information that may be fundamental to our faith? Could this be one of the reasons that so many children of Christians do not remain in the faith when they leave home? What can we do to reinforce their belief in the biblical account so that this will not happen?

In the material that follows, I will try to explain some current scientific theories about the origin of the Earth, the scientific method for dating the age of the Earth, and the theory of evolution of species. I will also attempt to identify some of the obvious errors, inconsistencies, weaknesses, and flaws in the scientific methods and theories. These obvious problems in the scientific understanding make it easier for me to explain my faith in the biblical account of the great miracle of creation. Hopefully, some of the information in this article will be useful for parents as they try to explain to their children why we believe in the biblical account of creation. Also, the current scientific account is not based on verifiable facts but on many assumptions and inconsistencies that are not verifiable and often contradict each other.

Thoughts on the Origin of the Earth and Motion of the Spheres

One of the theories for the origin of the Earth is the "Big Bang Theory". According to this theory, from a source of matter, through a big explosion, BANG — there it was — the solar system suddenly appeared, and by now it has developed in its complexity and order as we observe it today. All this happened totally by accident?!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics directly contradicts the "Big Bang Theory". It states that all matter continually deteriorates from a higher state of order to a lower, more chaotic state of order. Sort of what happens to a new car from the time it leaves the showroom until 15 years later. Below, I will show that there is a very high level of order in the universe and in our solar system, which would make the "Big Bang Theory" somewhat less probable. Could all this order have been created through some random process? Through an accident?

The Complexity Problem

One of the factors that makes life possible on Earth is its rotation and its specific orbit around the sun. The main factors that control the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are:

• The sun’s size and mass.
• The Earth’s distance from the Sun.
• The Earth’s size and mass.
• The Earth’s velocity (movement around the Sun).

If just one of these factors were slightly different, life on Earth as we know it would not be possible. As an example, if the Earth’s mass were slightly less, both the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and its temperature and climate would be very different. Also, the gravitational force of the Earth
would be changed, which would impact the Earth’s ability to retain gases necessary to sustain life.

I will try to provide more information, perhaps somewhat surprising information, on the order and complexity of the motion and orbit of the Earth, as scientists understand it:

The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93,000,000 miles (93 million miles). This distance is the radius of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. It takes the Earth one year to complete one orbit around the Sun. We travel about 292,000,000 miles (292 million miles) in one year! If we divide the yearly distance travelled by 365 days, we find that we cover about 800,000 miles in one day. If we divide the daily distance travelled by 24 hours, we find out that we may be in for a severe speeding violation. We are moving along at a velocity of 33,350 miles per hour! To complicate things slightly more, to provide reasonable temperatures on Earth and allow for day and night, the Earth turns on its own axis once every 24 hours. By dividing the earth’s circumference of about 24,900 miles by 24 hours, we can calculate that we are moving at a velocity of 1040 miles per hour (at the equator, a little less) around and around, "as the world turns". This motion is in a different direction from the motion around the sun. Now, if we want to get more complex and more technical, science claims that the sun is not just standing still either (and we have to match the sun’s motion to remain in a circular orbit around it). The sun is moving within our galaxy at a respectable 115,000 miles per hour, and we are matching that velocity, but in a different direction from the above velocities. Our galaxy is also in motion ...but you get the picture.

Perhaps the information above will make it more evident that there must be order and complexity in the motion of the earth, of the sun, and of other planets and stars, which is far beyond our understanding. This complex order did not just happen through a big BANG. There must have been planning and intelligence far beyond man’s abilities to comprehend, to put all this into motion to make our life possible on earth. This complexity flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that such does not occur in the natural realm.

To illustrate very simply: Potholes do not repair themselves. The disorder that exists is natural; the order necessary to repair it comes from outside intelligence.

How to Dismantle the "Earth Clock" to Find Out Its Age

Is there a way to accurately determine the age of the Earth? Both through scientific methods and through a study of the Bible, it is difficult to determine an approximate age for the Earth. The process of using biblical information to estimate the age of the earth starts with a study of Genesis, followed by a review of genealogies from Adam to Christ, and the addition of elapsed time after the birth of Christ. The difficulties in interpreting this information start in Genesis:

There is some disagreement over Genesis 1:1-31. Even though a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1-31 implies that creation took God six days, some Bible scholars disagree with this. Some suggest that what is described in Genesis 1:1-2 may have taken place much earlier, before the first day of the six days. Some bible scholars reason that perhaps the six days of creation may not have been six 24-hour periods, since the time concept of "day" to God may be different. (Editor’s note: Since the Bible defines the days of creation as "morning and evening," I am persuaded that they are twenty-four-hour periods, fdc.) II Peter 3:8 says that a day to God may be as long as 1000 years for us. Time estimates in the genealogies may be wrong, too, because some genealogies are incomplete or missing. Therefore, the time from creation to the time of Christ may have been longer than previously estimated. According to Bible scholars, the earth is somewhat more than 6000 years old. The best scientific estimate now places the Earth's age at about 4-5 billion years. Why is there such a vast difference between these two estimates? With the following information, I will attempt to show that the scientific method for determining the age of the Earth has serious flaws and uncertainties.

In some ways, the Earth resembles a clock, even though it is immensely more complicated than any clock built by man. A clock repeats its timekeeping process every 12 or 24 hours by timing a repeating cycle. Most of the forces that influence and shape the earth are cyclical too, like day and night, the lunar cycle, and the seasons caused by the earth’s yearly trip around the sun.

As science better understands geologic forces, it becomes increasingly likely that geological forces are cyclical as well, even though geological changes may take much longer. Erosion wears mountains down and washes sediments through streams and rivers into huge ocean basins, where these sediments slowly accumulate to tremendous thicknesses and may eventually be uplifted to form new landmasses and perhaps even new mountains, only to be eroded all over again. This erosion explains why the oceans are "salty," and the rest of the waters are not. However, when one measures the known rate of ocean salinization, one finds that there is not nearly enough salt in the oceans for the Earth to be 4 billion years old. In fact, not enough for it to be even 25,000 years old. One known "clock," therefore, says that the 4-5 billion-year age of the greater "clock" just isn’t so.

"Continental Drift Theory" is a recent geological theory that tries to explain how continents can divide to form new oceans, how they can be melted down, and how new landmasses can be formed in yet another cyclical process. It also explains the origin of earthquakes and volcanic activity. According to the theory, there are forces within the Earth’s core that somehow bring about slow movements of "plates". These plates, which make up the Earth's crust of continents and oceans, appear to be slowly drifting in different directions on the Earth's liquid core, bumping into each other. In these collisions, crustal material from the edges of oceanic plates is melted as they are pushed under continental plates, and new crustal material is formed through volcanic activity.

You may or may not accept the above theories. I only needed to include them to show the flaws in current scientific thinking: The above theories support the idea that most forces shaping the earth, as scientists currently understand them, are cyclical. Unfortunately, this causes a problem for scientists, since their current understanding of cyclical geological changes makes accurate age dating of the Earth impossible. Current dating procedures require that the material analyzed be original material. Since the earth material analyzed in the dating process may already have been reworked, it is likely that the dating results are not accurate.

The forces that shape the Earth appear to be cyclical. Trying to date the age of the world is like observing the workings of a huge, immensely complicated clock not built by man to find out when it was built. There is no scientific way to accomplish this! At best, scientists can hope to better understand the various cyclical processes, but they cannot determine the age of the "clock" (the Earth).

How Mother Nature Starts New Species and How a "Dollgg" Reproduces

The "Theory of Evolution" is generally accepted and taught in high schools and universities throughout this country as the process by which life formed and evolved on Earth.

The "Theory of Evolution" contains some segments on "selection of the fittest" and "adaptation," which may contain some truth. It also teaches that different species evolved through mutation. The species "evolved" means that the lower (simpler and smaller) species came first, and larger, more complex species evolved from them at a later time. "Mutation" means that reproductive cells were somehow altered by radiation, producing a major change that results in different offspring that reproduce, forming a new species. These concepts, which are significant components of the theory, are not supportable scientifically.

The weakness in the "Theory of Evolution" is that the process hinges on mutation to bring about the transition from one species to another. Mutation in simple life forms (reproduction through cell division of one-celled animals or asexual reproduction) may occur, but it is usually a step backwards. That means that the creature that results from mutation is less able to survive than the parent. Documented mutations usually have been degenerative, a step backward, not forward, as the "Theory of Evolution" requires. For more complex species (sexual reproduction), mutations are improbable. When they do occur, there is no easily identifiable benefit.

Let's deal with mutations in complex species in a little more detail. As an example, there are many different breeds of dogs. Different breeds of dogs are not different species; they are all part of the species "dog". All dogs can reproduce with one another (though this may be difficult due to differences in size). Being able to reproduce (only with dogs) is a requirement to be part of the species "dog". For a mutation to produce a new species, the altered young, by definition, can no longer reproduce with any of the species it mutated from, or it would not be a different species. As an example, let's assume that, through mutation from a dog, an animal that looks a little like a dog but has six legs is produced. Let's also assume that its chromosomes are different from those of a dog, and therefore, it could not reproduce with dogs. We will call it a "dollgg," since it has extra legs. The first dollgg really would not be able to reproduce with anything at all, since it would be the only living representative of the new species, "dollgg". To be able to reproduce, it would need another dollgg of the opposite sex. Mutations are very rare. Yes, mutations in dogs can occur once in a great while. Still, the results would not be another dollgg, since the effect of radiation on reproductive cells is random and can produce an infinite number of possible changes. Perhaps you are starting to understand why the likelihood of producing another dollgg just like our dollgg above, and of the opposite sex, is just about impossible. To have it happen during the life of our dollgg is virtually impossible. What makes it almost impossible is that while mutations do occur anywhere on the earth, if another dollgg would result from one of these dog mutations, it could live anywhere on this planet. What is the likelihood of a male and a female dollgg ever meeting during their lifetime so that they could reproduce more dollggs?

The random effect of mutation is the process that scientists believe is responsible for producing all the different species on Earth. It is taught to our kids as the "Theory of Evolution". The odds of producing just one new species through this process appear totally impossible. Scientists identified more than 10 million species living on Earth. All of these species evolved through mutation? Why is it that this scientific explanation seems a bit hard to accept? Why do most people swallow it, bait, hook, line, and sinker?

Conclusion

God created the universe, including the earth and life on it. Man, in his unwillingness to accept God’s word, has barely scratched the surface of the earth, and much less of the universe. Yet, based on poor understanding of limited observations, man provided "facts" to "prove" that the biblical explanation of creation is flawed — That man is right and God is not.

Through time, man’s understanding of evolution and of the origin and age of the earth has undergone continual changes, based on "sound" scientific principles. Numerous old theories have been discarded as new ones have been embraced, only to be discarded.

God can perform miracles. Why is it so difficult for man to realize that God, with His infinite power and wisdom far beyond our ability to comprehend, was able to create the earth and the processes that reshape it in such a way that scientists are just beginning to discover it to be? Why do scientists assume the world, if created by God, has to be solid, like cheese, with no layering inside? Why do they think God could not create matter in such a way that it does not provide accurate age data during their dating attempts? Why could God not have created the Earth with fossils already buried inside the layers of material, to confuse those who do not want to believe him? (Although with our knowledge of the flood of Noah, there is no reason to believe this took place, fdc.) II Thessalonians 2:10-11 (New King James) says: "... because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion that they should believe the lie..." This passage obviously applies directly to all people who reject Christ. There may also be a limited application of the passage to people who accept only parts of God's word and reject the biblical account of creation.

Millions of people profess to be Christians. Many of them believe that Christ was born of a virgin, performed many miracles, died for our sins, and was raised from the dead. None of the miracles concerning Christ can be substantiated by archeological evidence, nor can they be duplicated by science or medicine today, yet they are accepted by faith. Like Christ’s resurrection, creation is a significant miracle, since it made our existence on earth possible. Just as there is no archeological, scientific, or medical explanation for the miracles concerning Christ, there is no explanation for the miracle of creation. Why is it that so many so-called Christians reject the biblical record of creation?