If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.

Scientific method does not, in itself, have the capacity to prove either a young Earth or an old Earth. Both the young Earth and the old Earth positions use the same scientific facts to come to very different conclusions based on either presupposition or direct revelation. However, ungodly people believe fabricated stories (evolutionism, old-Earthism, big-bangism, bibilcal-erroism, etc.) that are based on arbitrary assumptions (naturalism, materialism, uniformitarianism) and rationalizations. They then call this science and get jobs teaching unsuspecting young people in universities.

"If certain assumptions are made about it [radiometric dating], then, it can yield a date which could be called the apparent age. Whether or not the apparent age is the true age depends completely on the validity of the assumptions."  ~ famous evolutionist, Eugenie Scott

“In view of this fact, the highly speculative nature of all methods of geochronometry becomes apparent when one realizes that not one of the above assumptions is valid! None are provable, or testable, or even reasonable.” ~ famous evolutionist, Eugenie Scott

"Since there is no way in which these assumptions can be tested, there is no sure way (except by divine revelation) of knowing the true age of any geological formation." ~ famous evolutionist, Eugenie Scott

"We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present… A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past… Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations… [and] the age is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven." ~ famous evolutionist, Eugenie Scott

"So, what should we do if a geological interpretation doesn’t fit with the Bible? Question the geological interpretation! Interpretations are not reality. They are made-up stories related to reality. They can be wrong. Often we will need to re-examine the evidence directly. Frequently, even the ‘facts’ reported in geological books are not facts, but interpretations. When we carefully observe the evidence directly, and interpret it starting from the true history given in the Bible, we can confidently expect to find that the evidence fits the truth of the Bible, God’s infallible revealed Word." http://creation.com/shifting-sands This quote is an understatement. Often geological books are filled with misrepresentations. They embrace a fabricated story that is based on arbitrary assumptions and call these stories and assumptions, "facts." That is outright deception, and many people are being fooled into believing in these lies.

Those who believe that the earth is billions of years old cannot make such a determination using true science. All the scientific methods that are used to calculate historical events are necessarily dependent on circular reasoning. There may be a dash of wishful thinking involved at times as well. Science is great for things like developing computer chips, discovering a cure for disease, or building an electric generator. All of those things can be repeatedly tested. It is impossible to test things that happened in the past.

Chart explaining how time from the Creation to the present can be calculated using Scripture?

There are many indicators of the age of the Earth. One of the problems in using them is the fact, already mentioned, that every method used to determine the age of the Earth uses circular reasoning. What that means is that certain assumptions must be made in order to do the mathematical calculations to determine the age of the Earth. These assumptions are just pulled out of the air. They are simply rational-lie-zed speculations, otherwise known as SSWAAFTs. One set of assumptions could be used just as well as any other. Even though a plain reading of Scripture seems to indicate a young Earth, we can't even deny the possibility that God could have done something that Scripture doesn't hint at and that has left no scientific evidence. It is possible. It just is not worth the time to think about it.

Time is relative. This is a testable scientific fact. The creation story, and the rest of the Bible, is told using the frame of reference of the time that is passing on the Earth. Dr. Humphreys points out how God could have easily allowed billions of years to pass for the distant stars while virtually no time at all passed in our solar system in that part of day four when God created the stars. Read the articles These scientific articles give you a very interesting look at the actual scientific facts. They illustrate our need to keep our minds open, especially when we don't have complete information. We only know in part. The Scripture is accurate, but the human mind sometimes thinks that it has understood a concept when it has not.

One type of SSWAAFT is to use an unproven formula to calculate. Now the pseudo scientist can plug in known values into the formula and come up with an answer. The answer is bogus of course, but the pseudo scientist can fool a lot of people with his or her phony formula. This method can be used to "prove" everything from age-of-earth to hole-in-ozone to warming-of-globe to who-knows-what-they'll-think-of-next.

Uniformitarianism is one of the assumptions that old Earth believers, and also evolutionists, like to use. The fact is that evolutionists need this assumption because they say that even though evolution is impossible, over vast amounts of time, the impossible must happen. That is poor logic, but it happens to be all that they have., so they need vast amounts of time. Hence, the amount of money and effort that has been dedicated to sell old Earth stories. Basically, Uniformitarianism is the incorrect assumption that there was no flood and there was no creation. It should be noted that Noah's global flood is one interpretation of most of the fossil record while old earth theories are another interpretation of the fossil record. It cannot be both. One of these caused the fossil record and the other did not. A global flood on the order of the flood described in the Bible would have wiped out any previous fossils. There is actually one totally speculative old earth theory, one of the gap theories, that cannot be disproved by science or by the Bible, but why we would care about something that is pure speculation and impossible to test?

Skilled evolutionists, must remember not to mention the fact that they are assuming the very things that they are trying to prove. They just keep that a secret. If someone asks them about it, they pretend that person is closed-minded. If that person who questions the evolutionist is a student in the evolutionist's class, guess what is going to happen to the grade point average. If you're an evolutionist, then you don't really want anyone to think about your loopy logic. You don't want them to ponder the fact that your logic starts by assuming the answer that you want, and then it works the problem backwards to arrive back at the same answer as your original assumption.

Ignoring, forgetting, and hiding the fact that the evolutionists are assuming the things they are trying to prove, Uniformitarianism has another serious problem. Uniformitarianism doesn't hold up to a simple test. If the assumption were not false, then you could take one set of assumptions and apply that set of assumptions to the many indicators of the age of the Earth and come up with the same age. The problem with Uniformitarianism is that if you take one indicator of the age of the Earth, you will get one age. If you take another indicator, you will get a wildly different age. Most of the indicators will tell you that the Earth is only a few thousand years old--no good if you have to prove the impossible molecules-to-man evolution conjecture / fabrication that requires the magic wands of millions of years, Natural Selection, and Lucky Mutations. The differences are not small between the age-of-the-earth calculations using different indicators.  They are huge.  That exposes the fact that the SSWAAFT of Uniformitarianism is wrong.  Uniformitarianism is a fib.

If we plug a great flood into the equation about 4,000-5,000 years ago, all the data begins to make sense. If we plug the creation into the equation a few thousand years before that great flood, then everything starts to make even more sense. The SSWAAFT of Uniformitarianism is, however, widely used, because using it will make it possible to come up with scientific sounding calculations that say the Earth is very old. Evolutionists have to remember to keep certain pieces of information hidden, though. The evolutionists tell people that the calculations are very hard to understand. In this case they aren't really lying. The calculations actually are hard to understand, because they don't make any sense. However, evolutionist's calculations do serve the important role of confusing people, which is the real basis of the evolutionary paradigm. Besides, when someone is having so much fun sinning, who wants to think about a God who judges sin and a nasty old flood anyway? And, for those who like to do their own thing, who wants to think about a God who wants obedience?

When science is used in the way that God intended it to be used, God reveals Himself and His works through His creation.

Many Christians have lost their faith because of speculations regarding the age of the Earth. Some of these speculations usually put death before sin, eliminate the world-wide flood and replace it with millions of years, and eliminate the creation and replace it with billions of years. Those in the universities are zealous to point out to young Christians that if death is before sin (the claim of both naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution), then sin does not cause death. If sin does not cause death, that destroys the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They then claim that evolution is science. Another tactic is to start with the idea of an old earth, stating that that is scientific fact, which it is not. They then point to the Bible verses and the genealogies that show that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. This second tactic has been the most effective in turning college students, high school students, and grade school students away from Christ just based on stories about an old Earth and an old Universe. However, science is not a good tool for knowing the age of anything. And the people in power in the scientific community have a strong bias against the Almighty Creator God and against the Bible. They are not shy about filtering the information and deceptively describing their stories about the age of the Universe and the Earth as being solidly based on strong scientific evidence--it is not based on scientific evidence. In fact, these people go to great lengths to stop anyone who exposes the problems with their story.

There is plenty of evidence for a young Earth and a recent creation:

Since science depends on observation, it unable to give us an age for the Earth. Any calculations require assumptions. Old earth calculations assume that no worldwide flood took place, for instance. That is only one of the assumptions. Young-earth scientists also make assumptions to come up their their age estimates. If you change the assumptions, you change the estimate.

Evolutionists and old Earth believers claim that science supports their stories. Is there any truth to either of these claims? * * *

• Ten Scientific Facts that Show a Young Earth
• Darwin Dethroned by Geologist
• Evolutionary Explanations Come Up Empty
• Oldest Shrimp Looks Shrimpy
• New science reveals that Steno failed to account for the effects of moving water--new evidence destroys Evolutionism's stories.
• Laws of Information - Problems for Evolution Part 1
• Implications of the scientific laws of information--part 2
• Evolution has a very real information problem.

There is plenty of scientific evidence for a young Earth and a recent creation:

• Semi-technical Article
• Several Articles on Various Aspects
• What Evidence is Used to Show that the Earth is Young?
• The Universe was Created Recently.
• Fourteen Easy-To-Understand Reasons for a Young Earth
• Questions and Answers About the Age of the Earth
• Old Galaxies Don't Line Up with Facts

Obviously, science cannot prove either a young or an old Earth. Both positions use the same scientific facts to come to very different conclusions based on either presupposition or direct revelation. Some would say it this way: the differences are in the beliefs, and those beliefs are based either in presuppositions or in revelation.

Interestingly, explanation given in the previous paragraph does not depend on circular reasoning or poor logic. It depends on God. This is the kind of faith that is what is really operating. It is based on revelation. Now, a naturalist will attack the whole idea of revelation claiming that revelation cannot be verified.

Click for a series of video lessons on conclusive creation evidence and scientific evidence regarding the age of the earth.

FREE on-line BOOK (a classic): The Real Faith, by Charles S. Price

FREE on-line BOOK (a classic): The Meaning Of Faith, by Charles S. Price