Proof That it Does Not Take Billions of Years to Carve the Earth 2

Although this particular Creationist has made her point of view very clear on several occasions, apparently, in my previous article with the same name as this one, I did not make my point clear enough. Mostly this was because I got a little carried away with my topic, which was the fact that it doesn't take a long period of time to mold and carve the Earth. That was what the entire article was supposed to be about but I made a slip up at the beginning by stating that I wanted to answer two questions instead of just one. So in this second piece of the "pie" I'm going to attempt to answer the question; "is the Earth really as old as science says it is?"

First of all, I have always maintained that I believe in a very young Earth and a young universe as well. I believe every single word of the Holy Bible to be absolute truth, and as a result of that belief, I find it difficult to comprehend how anyone can believe that the world is billions of years old. But, that is neither here nor there. The first thing we need to do here, is determine if the scientific doctrines used to age the planet are sufficient to the task. Carbon 14 dating is a prime example of one aging technique that is simply not up to the job. This form of dating has been used for decades to determine the age of rock and fossilized remains, yet it is woefully inaccurate, and here is why:

Carbon 14 dating relies on sunlight in order to decompose the carbon in any fossil, because this technique uses the amount of decomposition to determine the age of an artifact. However, the problem with that is the theory that light is a constant when in fact it is not. The speed of light slows down at times, then speeds up at times, and even if it is only a fraction of a second faster or slower than it was before, that miniscule difference in the speed of light makes a big difference over time, in regards to determining the age of something. Which means that using this technique can not and will not produce an accurate reading. An ESTIMATE of the artifact's age is the best we can get and Scientists know this but they still refuse to admit that the Old Earth Theory could possibly be wrong.

The simple fact is, that the age of an extinct animal's skeleton is impossible to determine accurately using the traditional aging methods. Another fact is this....If you found a dead animal alongside the highway, and took it home to experiment on, (disgusting, but this is your hobby) stripped it of all of its meat, and then buried the bones beneath a pile of dirt, rock, pebbles, sand and whatever else you could get your hands on, and then flooded the burial site with hundreds of billions of gallons of standing water, you would rather quickly compress all that sand, dirt and other detritous around those bones and create a de-calcification effect in the skeleton which would turn it into stone. That, after all, is what a fossil is, stone, that has replaced bone.

In a rather simplified manner, I have just described what happened during the Great Flood of Noah's day, that Scientists say never happened. So, are the fossils really, really old, or are they really, really young? Carbon 14 dating is not going to give you the answers. Considering that fossilized dinosaur footprints have been found with fossilized human prints superimposed over them, I would dare say that the estimated age of the dinosaurs needs to be reevaluated. Logically, if the fossil evidence is telling us that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth together, than that is probably what happened. The Bible would agree with that assessment, considering that the Book of Job even describes a dinosaur in great detail. (Job 40, 15-24)

People would like us to think that the description of the "behemoth" in the Book of Job is nothing more than a hippopotamas, even those who publish Bibles want us to believe that. But if you read the passages listed above you will realize that nothing in there is describing a hippo. a rhino, an elephant, or anything else we are used to seeing in the zoo. This is clearly a very unique and very large, strong animal, and very clearly unlike something that scientifically speaking, should have been found during the age of man. But there it is for all the world to see if they will only look.

If the dinosaurs are younger than we think then it would be logical to assume that the Earth itself is younger than we thought as well. According to the Word of God, there is no such thing as a "pre-history", since the entire age of the universe, the Earth, and mankind is recorded therein. So, if there is no prehistory there simply cannot be a time that has not been thoroughly investigated by someone. If that is the case then dinosaurs are not prehistoric at all, and neither are all those rocks, boulders, pebbles and stones that we see lying around all over the place. Besides, there have been rumors of eyewitness accounts of living dinosaurs in this day and age, and I don't mean "Nessie" either.