A physician who has made a complete examination of a person without having been told his age could probably make an accurate estimate of it because of
his knowledge of how the aging process works. But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam and Eve immediately after they
were created and was then asked to estimate their age? If he didn’t know they had been created directly he would assume they had been born as
babies and base his estimate on how long it would take for them to reach their present state if they had undergone the normal aging process. The
result would be that his estimate would be much higher than their actual age.
Scientists who try to discover the age of the earth usually begin by assuming that the natural processes which are occurring now have been going on
since the formation of the world and that there has never been any kind of divine intervention. They have come to the conclusion that the earth is
billions of years old because that is how long it would take for these processes to bring about the conditions we see existing today.
But what if the Biblical account of creation is true? Then scientists who try to measure the earth’s age are in the same position as the doctor who
tried to estimate the age of Adam and Eve. Their age estimates are off because they have a false idea of how the earth came into existence.
If the doctor who examined Adam and Eve were observant enough he would notice that they didn’t have navels. This would show that they hadn’t
begun their existence inside their mothers’ wombs and so weren’t born the way other people are. Since they didn’t come into existence the way
other people did then the usual methods of estimating age wouldn’t apply to them.
There is also evidence that the earth isn’t as old as most people believe. One example is finding soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that
supposedly lived millions of years ago. This is from an article titled “Soft Tissue in Fossils” in the October 2012 issue of Answers magazine.
Ask the average layperson how he or she knows that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and that person will probably mention the
dinosaurs, which nearly everybody “knows” died off 65 million years ago. A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for
all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption.
Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the
microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained
what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with
specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.
Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms
(dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical
evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a
highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled
“Blood from Stone.”)
Soft tissue couldn’t have survived for such a long time so this is evidence that previous age estimates of the world must be wrong. Much more
evidence of this kind can be found on answersingenesis.org and scienceagainstevolution.info.
The fact that Adam and Eve lacked navels would indicate that they had been created directly by God but what would happen if the doctor who examined
them was an atheist? Would the evidence convince him that God existed or would he try to find some explanation for their existence that didn’t
force him to abandon his beliefs? A look at how scientists have reacted to the discovery of soft dinosaur tissue shows that the second response is
the most likely one. Here is more of the article quoted above.
Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood
vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who
find Schweitzer’s evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves
cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur
fossils are not millions of years old.
If there is evidence that the earth is much younger than most people believe, why do most people believe it is much older? The answer is found in the
article “The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth” in the same issue of Answers.
In the rush to examine all these amazing scientific “evidences,” it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. Such a mountain of
scientific evidence, accumulated by researchers, seems to obviously contradict the supposed billions of years, so why don’t more people rush to
accept the truth of a young earth based on the Bible?
The problem is, as we consider the topic of origins, all so-called “evidences” must be interpreted. Facts don’t speak for themselves.
Interpreting the facts of the present becomes especially difficult when reconstructing the historical events that produced those present-day facts,
because no humans have always been present to observe all the evidence and to record how all the evidence was produced.
Forensic scientists must make multiple assumptions about things they cannot observe. How was the original setting different? Were different
processes in play? Was the scene later contaminated? Just one wrong assumption or one tiny piece of missing evidence could totally change how they
reconstruct the past events that led to the present-day evidence.
That’s why, when discussing the age of the earth, Christians must be ready to explain the importance of starting points and assumptions.
Reaching the correct conclusions requires the right starting point.
All of us have a desire to live our lives as we want without having to account to any higher authority for our actions. If we believe that the earth
was created only a few thousand years ago we will be forced to believe that there is a God who intervenes in the affairs of the universe and who
therefore cares about how we live. This is the reason most people, including scientists, subconsciously ignore evidence of God’s work and try to
find alternate explanations for why we exist.
The belief that earth is billions of years old has become such an integral part of our culture that even some Christians who believe the Bible is true
accept the prevailing beliefs and interpret the creation account in Genesis to make it conform to those beliefs.
The issue of Answers containing the articles I quoted from has much more scientific evidence that shows that the earth is younger than most people
believe. You can read it online here: