Monday, September 12, 2016

Dinosaur Fossils in These Rock Layers?

Cite this article: Tim Clarey, Ph.D. 2015. Dinosaur Fossils in Late-Flood RocksActs & Facts. 44 (2).

Dinosaur Fossils in Late-Flood Rocks

Evolutionary scientists view Earth’s rock layers as a chronological record of millions of years of successive sedimentary deposits. Creation scientists, on the other hand, see them as a record of the geological work accomplished during the great Flood’s year-long destruction of the Earth’s surface. If that is the case, though, why don’t we find dinosaur fossils in the earliest North American Flood sediment layers—why do we find them only in later Flood rocks? The ICR team’s recent examination of sedimentary rock layers across the United States and Canada seems to provide an answer.
Deposition of the earliest Flood sediments (the Sauk, Tippecanoe, and Kaskaskia Megasequences) was thickest in the eastern half of the U.S.—often deeper than two miles! In contrast, the early Flood deposits across much of the West are commonly less than a few hundred yards deep, and in many places there was no deposition at all (Figure 1).
It seems the dinosaurs were able to survive through the early Flood in the West simply because they were able to congregate and scramble to the elevated remnants of land—places where the related sedimentary deposits aren’t as deep—as the floodwaters advanced. I call this high ground Dinosaur Peninsula. In this way, dinosaurs were able to escape burial in the early Flood.
However, later in the Flood (during deposition of the Absaroka and Zuni Megasequences) things changed dramatically. Pangaea, the former supercontinent made up of all of today’s continents, began to break up. This change in tectonics, combined with increasing water levels, caused great changes in the ways that the rock layers were deposited. Violent, tsunami-like waves washed across western North America while virtually no sedimentation was occurring in the East. This is a complete reversal of the pattern observed earlier in the Flood.
Rock sequence data show that more than three miles of sediment rapidly accumulated across the American West during the Absaroka and Zuni Megasequences.1 This apparently overwhelmed and buried the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous dinosaurs that couldn’t escape the Flood. As the waters rose, Dinosaur Peninsula began flooding from south to north. We also find the largest herds of dinosaurs, in the form of dinosaur fossil graveyards, in the Upper Cretaceous system sediments in northern Wyoming, Montana, and Alberta, Canada. It’s as if the dinosaurs were fleeing northward up the peninsula as the waters advanced from the south. By day 150 of the Flood (Genesis 7:24), even the Uplands area to the north, in present Canada, was covered by the floodwaters (Figure 1).
In his book Digging Dinosaurs, American paleontologist John R. (Jack) Horner reported the discovery of a huge dinosaur graveyard—over 10,000 adult Maiasaura in a small area, and yet no young were mixed in with them.2 What could have caused this odd sorting? In a Flood model, this is easily explained: The adult dinosaurs were likely stampeding away from the imminent danger of raging floodwaters; their young could not keep up and became engulfed in some lower part of the peninsula.
More research is being done on the stages of the Flood and the order in which the continents were submerged. But each answer provides new insight into the great catastrophe that forever altered the topography of our world.
  1. The data are taken from stratigraphic rock columns, outcrops, and holes bored deep in the earth to examine the different rock layers. To know the dimensions of megasequences, we have to look at many of these columns across a given area.
  2. Horner, J. R. and J. Gorman. 1988. Digging Dinosaurs. New York: Workman Publishing, 128.
* Dr. Clarey is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in geology from Western Michigan University.
Cite this article: Tim Clarey, Ph.D. 2015. Dinosaur Fossils in Late-Flood RocksActs & Facts. 44 (2).

Friday, August 5, 2016

Old Evolutionary Icon Still Being Exposed

Peppered Moth Still Not Evolving
Back in 2003, ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris explained a few ways evolutionists themselves criticized the use of the peppered moth as an example of evolutionary beliefs.1 New genetic research validates those criticisms.
The moth earned fame as a key player in a classic evolutionary story in the late 19th century. In England, a population of peppered moths supposedly shifted their coloring from mostly white to mostly black after soot from the industrial revolution darkened their tree-trunk homes. According to the tale, bird predators had a difficult time seeing the now-camouflaged dark moths, so those moths began to thrive.
That story helped rescue Darwin's conception of natural selection from a round of early 20th century criticisms, such as a lack of supporting field evidence.
However, later researchers could not replicate the peppered moth results. Other investigators discovered that most of the story's facts were essentially wrong. For example, peppered moths live mostly beneath leaves, not on tree trunks. One researcher staged photos of the moths on sooty trunks—not where moths naturally rest.
Morris reviewed a book by Judith Hooper that exposed these peppered moth follies. She admitted the moth story was all wrong, but expressed undaunted faith in evolution nonetheless.2 Morris wrote,
It may be surprising to her and other evolutionists that creationists have never had a problem with the traditional story, except with the claim that it was 'evolution in action.' It was really only 'variation and conservation in action.'1
In other words, what began as a population of light and dark moth varieties existed through the industrial revolution as a population of light and dark moth varieties. No net evolution occurred. And that's essentially what geneticists confirmed in their new study.
Publishing in Nature, biologists centered at the University of Liverpool discovered that a well-known form of genetic shuffling, involving a transposable element (TE), generated the dark versions of these moths.3 The researchers' diligent labors revealed that, at some point in the past, a 21,925 nucleotide-long segment of DNA was inserted into a gene that embryonic moths access during development.
The study authors wrote, "The insert was found to be present in 105 of 110 fully black moths (wild caught in the UK since 2002) and absent in all (283) typica [white moths] tested."3 Clearly, even a century or so afterEngland cleaned the soot off its tree trunks, both black and white moth varieties still thrive just fine in the wild.
What mechanism generated the dark moth variety? Natural selection does not fit the bill. At best, death of "unfit" moths would merely reduce color variations, not generate new ones.
When functioning correctly, TE's precisely integrate with cellular machinery that helps cut and paste DNAs into genomic regions that will enhance variation without disrupting vital genes. Geneticists uncovered key roles for TE's in all kinds of animals—and even man.4 In other words, it looks like God designed these "jumping genes."5
So, in the beginning the Creator endowed moths with the genetic potential for future generations to generate dark varieties. Peppered moths never illustrated evolution in action. But now, more than ever, they clearly expose genius creativity.
  1. Morris, H. 2003. Evolutionists and the Moth Myth. Acts & Facts 32 (8).
  2. Hooper, J. 2002. Of Moths and Men. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.
  3. Van't Hof, A. E. et al. 2016. The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable elementTE. Nature. 534 (7605): 102-105.
  4. Kunarso, G. et al. 2010. Transposable elements have rewired the core regulatory network of human embryonic stem cells. Nature Genetics. 42 (7): 631-634.
  5. A hiccup in healthy cell processes that randomly pasted the 21,925-long TE into this particular gene would justify the Nature study authors calling it a "mutation." However, processes could have pasted the TE into this gene as part of an internal variation-generating protocol. But this implies ingeniously designed automated genetic-script editing. The team did not test these options, but whether the TE placement happened by accident or design, the cut-and-paste process itself followed a focused strategy using cellular machinery and protocols.
Image credit: © 2011. M. Henderson. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.
*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on August 4, 2016.

Monday, July 25, 2016

2016 fairs so far

Non-stop. That describes the activity at the Dane County Fair yesterday. Great conversations, sharing evidences, sharing Christ, answering questions, talking about the Flood, fossils, creation, God's Word. Wow, Three of us were so busy reaching out. It was a great day. I heard the booth in Waukesha was also busy, plus they received an award for their booth! Enjoy the pictures and keep praying for folks who come to the booth as well as the workers. We are only half way through fair season! To God be the glory.
Best Forum Vendor at Waukesha County Fair 2016

Ryan was such a blessing and help!

Discussion about the "Races" of mankind.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

I Love Lucy?

by William A. Hoesch, M.S.*
Lucy, to TV audiences of the 1950s and 1960s, was a spunky red-headed actress. To our more educated schoolchildren today, however, “Lucy” means somethingquite different. She is the celebrated fossil that appears in textbooks as a hairy, seminaked, upright-walking ape striding boldly across a treeless African landscape. Her jaw is set and she leaves behind her a set of trailing footprints. As the unquestioned icon of human evolution, her fame is comparable to that of the former actress. Why is it that all public school children have heard of this fossil? Let us consider Lucy and her species, Australopithicus afarensis. The human evolution story usually begins with the more primitive australopithocines (literally, “southern apes”) that transition into the genus Homo (or human), through either Homo habilis or Homo erectus, depending on who you talk to. Homo habilis is a mixed taxon of both human and ape remains, and has fallen into disrepute. As for Homo erectus, a great many suggest this category be subsumed into Homo sapiens. Thus “Lucy” and the afarensis fossils occupy a critical place in the human evolution story, squarely between that of the truly apish australopithocines and humans. Lucy’s skeleton was about 40% complete and was a remarkable discovery when unearthed by Don Johanson in 1974. The creature would have stood 3.5 feet tall, about the height of a chimpanzee. Its skull was grossly ape-like, and also about the size of a chimp’s, with very little in the way of human-like features. Lucy possessed very long fingers with a decided curve to them, like modern apes possess for tree-swinging activities. From other A. afarensis finds, it is believed Lucy possessed long toes with a curvature that also I Love Lucy? suggested prehensile and arboreal behavior. Lucy’s upright-turned shoulder joint enabled suspensory behavior and her hands, wrists, and arms were powerfully prehensile. And so you ask, what makes Lucy such a great missing link? Angles of bones in the (reconstructed) hip joint and knee joint suggest that Lucy spent part of her time walking upright. That is as strong as the evidence gets that she was related to humans. Virtually no anatomists will support Johanson’s claim that Lucy was a habitual upright walker, yet this is what most textbooks boast. There is one more piece of evidence that has been used to argue that Lucy was an upright walker: the Laotoli footprints. In strata comparable in age to those from which Lucy came are a set of very well defined fossil footprints. Remarkably, anatomists are unanimously agreed that the footprints are indistinguishable from those made by modern man on a beach. Rather than admit this as evidence that man and Lucy lived side-by-side in the past, it is claimed that an ape like Lucy must have made the footprints because “we all know” that man hadn’t evolved yet. This, despite the fact that it is almost inconceivable that an austro-lopithocine foot could have done it! It is only by circular reasoning that this can be admitted as evidence for human evolution yet this is exactly what is being done in our public schools today. If you want to know why Lucy is hailed the greatest of missing links it is because she is the best the evolutionist can come up with! There can be no other explanation. It is a credit to an educational establishment that banks on the ignorance of taxpayers that Lucy remains a “missing link.

Friday, July 1, 2016

Why Do We Have a Creation Booth at the Fairs?

Some candid thoughts:
Often,  people wonder why we have a booth at the fairs showing the scientific realities we see every day, and putting them into a Biblical context. The two following articles explain some of our goals and reasoning. In the articles, two ideas are contrasted. Please take the time to read the two short articles. We have all eternity to celebrate with our Lord. Take the time to listen and be a part of His plan, if you haven't already done so.
First, this is from Marvin Olasky. He is the editor in chief of World Magazine. We have subscribed for years, given subscriptions away as gifts and are a big fan. My husband met Mr. Olasky in Cedarville when our daughter attended school there. All good, however, we believe his ideas are very flawed in this regard and are surprised and disappointed by his views.

Can we get along?

I come away from all this reading thinking that both old-earth and 6-day-24-hour creationists put forward plausible arguments, and neither should excommunicate their opposites. Could it be that both are right? Seven Days That Divide the World (Zondervan, 2011), by John Lennox, a 72-year-old Oxford math and science professor, separates the question of the earth’s age from the interpretation of the creation days’ length.
Lennox argues that Scripture does not demand creation in six consecutive 24-hour days. He suggests that creation may have occurred during six days of normal length, each with evening and morning, but separated by long periods of time: “The outworking of the potential of each creative fiat would occupy an unspecified period of time after that particular creation day. One consequence of this is that we would expect to find what geologists tell us we do find—fossil evidence revealing the sudden appearance of new levels of complexity, followed by periods during which there was no more creation (in the sense of God speaking to inaugurate something radically new).”
I don’t expect strong advocates of competing positions to embrace Lennox’s, but the debate among creationists and intelligent design adherents now may parallel the debate among pro-life leaders 27 years ago. Back then the pro-life movement suffered from infighting, with some demanding an all-or-nothing approach (a constitutional amendment protecting all unborn life) and others proposing an all-or-something approach (until all gain protection, save as many as possible). Similarly, some creationists with a precise sense of the time attack those who focus primarily on the Creator and say the length of the process is secondary—and ire goes the other way as well.
Happily, quarterly meetings among pro-life leaders that began in 1989 helped to forge an informal truce among the warring parties. Absolutists and incrementalists learned to get along. Most came to agree on pro-life boundaries: Partner with all those whose goal is to protect all babies. Do not attack those who realize this goal will not be achieved quickly. Do not partner with those who favor the abortion of Down syndrome babies, or those conceived in rape, or those whose continued existence might affect the mental health of the mothers.
Could leaders from many groups, including the Big Four—ICR, AIG, Discovery, RTB—see if they can get along, as pro-life leaders did? After all, all four agree that life is the product of God’s design and not random forces. The names of all four of the biggest organizations have merit. Creation research is important, since we should not leave the scientific field to evolutionists’ inferences. Answers do reside in Genesis. We can and should present reasons to believe, as Luke did when he authored the book of Acts. With God’s grace we can discover the truth, and it will make us free. These groups should be allies, not combatants. —M.O.  click here and scroll for above article
In contrast, this is the view we take (from 

A- A A+
Article from:
Journal of Creation  Volume 26Issue 3 Cover
Journal of Creation26(3):25–28
December 2012
Free Email News
15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History
by Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan D Sarfati

US $3.50
View Item
Creation Without Compromise
by Donald D Crowe

US $15.00
View Item
Creation, Fall, Restoration
by Andrew S Kulikovsky

US $24.00
View Item
Refuting Compromise, updated & expanded
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

US $15.00
View Item
Design, Death and Suffering

US $13.00
View Item
In contrast, this is what we believe is true: (from

Who is being divisive about creation?

Lenox Seven Days that Divide the World
A review of Seven Days that Divide the World by John Lennox
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2011
reviewed by Lita Cosner
The title of John Lennox’s Seven Days that Divide the World presumes something about the creation/evolution debate that not many would contest—it can be an issue that divides Christians. It’s not an uncommon theme for a book to propose that a certain topic causes too much division among people who otherwise have a lot of reasons to be aligned with each other, and to propose a solution that all parties should be able to agree upon.
Lennox seems to have the qualifications to be such an arbiter, at least at first glance. He claims to be a Christian who has spent his life “actively engaged in science” (p. 13). His love of Scripture and science leads him to believe that “there must ultimately be harmony between correct interpretation of the biblical data and the correct interpretation of the scientific data” (p. 13).

Science and Scripture—but which should be reinterpreted?

In Chapter 1, Lennox uses the examples of Copernicus and Galileo in the usual mythical way to show how the church has wrongly pitted science and Scripture against each other, and suggests none too subtly that creationists are doing the same thing with the controversy about the age of the earth. Enough has been written in creationist literature about this that it is not necessary to cover it here.1 It will suffice to say that the major opposition to Galileo came from the Aristotelian scientific establishment, and not from the church—but to be fair, Lennox does mention the academic resistance as well.
Nothing in Genesis 1 itself (nor in the broader context of Scripture) requires the days to be metaphorical, or even indicates that they might be.
The point Lennox tries to make is that as science advanced, we found ways to interpret Scripture which harmonize with our modern understanding of the earth’s position in the solar system; perhaps there is such a way to harmonize the creation days with a long-age timescale. But the two are rather different. First, the major texts that were used to defend a geocentric solar system were poetic; poetry conveys truth using vivid imagery more often than by using straightforward language. For instance, when David prays “hide me in the shadow of Your wings” (Psalm 17:8) he does not mean to imply that God has feathers. In the same way, saying “Yes, the world is established, it shall never be moved” (Psalm 93:1) in the context isn’t saying that the world literally doesn’t move—we can tell from the next line: “Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting” (93:2) that the Psalmist is telling us about God’s reign. Furthermore, we can tell from Psalm 16:8, “I shall not be moved”, using the same Hebrew verb (מוֹט môt)—it’s not teaching that the Psalmist is in a strait-jacket. This is therefore a reductio AD absurdum of the whole argument.
But the young-earth timescale of creation comes primarily from historical narrative passages, which normally communicate via plain, factual language. And there is no reason to believe that Moses is speaking in metaphors when he talks about the six days of creation and God’s rest on the seventh day, either within the passage itself, or in the interpretation of that passage in the rest of Scripture (e.g. Exodus 20:8–11).

How should we understand Scripture?

Lennox helpfully points out: “The first obvious, yet important thing to say about the Bible is that it is literature” (p. 21). He goes on to say that literature should normally be interpreted by its plain meaning when informed by its historical, cultural, and linguistic context, and uses the Gospel as an instance where the plain meaning is meant by Scripture:
“The cross of Christ is not primarily a metaphor. It involved an actual death. The resurrection was not primarily [sic] an allegory. It was a physical event: a ‘standing up again’ of a body that had died” (p. 22).
He goes on to talk about how to identify metaphor, and uses as an example everyone recognizes as metaphor the sentence, “The car was flying down the road” (p. 23). But the words in the sentence themselves require that there be some figure of speech involved. Cars do not fly; they roll along the ground. If it was flying for any significant amount of time, it would not be a car (at least as we normally define it), and it would not be going ‘down’ the road because it would be above it.
Photo: Tova Teitelbaum
Figure 1. Scripture, like any communication using language, has a finite number of valid interpretations.
This is not a helpful example, however, because nothing in Genesis 1 itself (nor in the broader context of Scripture) requires the days to be metaphorical, or even indicates that they might be. That the creation days are so often interpreted literally by Hebrew specialists (both believers and unbelievers) is perhaps an indication that any metaphorical sense of the days is more obscure than Lennox’s example would suggest.2

And this:

Perils of Theistic Evolution1

Published: 6 December 2012 (GMT+10)
This is the pre-publication version which was subsequently revised to appear in Creation 37(3):44–47.
For many years, I have felt keenly both the privilege and the responsibility of speaking about the truth and authority of the Bible. Nowhere has the conflict of opinion been more intense than in discussion with theistic evolutionists (TEs)—those who insist that God used evolution2 to bring living things into being. According to Denis Alexander, we ‘creationists’ “bring the gospel into disrepute”, our teaching is “damaging to the spread of God’s kingdom”, we’re“divisive”, and “Christian campaigns against evolution represent a giant ‘red herring’ … ”3 On the last claim, we have found, quite to the contrary, that our ongoing Question Evolution campaign has gathered momentum and is certainly not being ignored.

Dangers of compromise

Theistic evolution denies what is known as ‘the perspicuity of Scripture’. It changes the way we read the Bible … In effect, the audacious claim is being made that nobody before Darwin could properly understand Genesis
For a few years, until part way through university, I myself departed from the straightforward reading of Genesis and embraced theistic evolution (TE). I can testify that, humanly speaking, belief in evolution brought me to a crisis in my faith: I faced the stark choice that either the evolutionary view was wrong, or the Genesis record of Creation/Fall/Flood/Babel was wrong. If Genesis couldn’t be trusted as historically reliable, Christianity itself would fail to be a logically defensible faith in my eyes.
Thanks to God, my own story did not end in spiritual shipwreck—but I have never forgotten my wrestling about origins. I am now more convinced than ever of the real dangers in swallowing worldly philosophy. It is dangerous for Christians to allow the opinions of clever men and women to shape their understanding of the Word of God, if what they say contradicts its plain meaning. Allow me to share just some of the many reasons why I passionately believe that the Christian church must strongly resist the accommodation with evolution that is threatening more and more otherwise evangelical churches.
Click here for entire article
Thanks for taking time to look into this. It is such an important topic. Mary

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Does Science Confirm the Bible's History? You Bet!

New DNA Study Confirms Noah

Evolutionary teachings hold that all mankind arose from a population of ape-like ancestors from which chimpanzees also evolved. But Genesis, the rest of the Bible, and Jesus teach that all mankind arose from Noah's three sons and their wives. A new analysis of human mitochondrial DNA exposes two new evidences that validate the biblical beginnings of mankind.
Mitochondrial DNA comes from mothers. Mother egg cells transmit their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) into the cellular mitochondria of every child born. This unique annex of DNA contains 16,569 bases—either adenine, guanine, cytosine, or thymine (A, G, C, T)—that encode vital cellular information, like an instruction manual.
Scientists have been comparing the genetic differences between every major people group around the globe. How did those differences arise?
Assuming that God placed the ideal mtDNA sequence into Eve, all those differences arose by mutations since the Genesis 3 curse, about 6,000 years ago. Other scientists measured the rate at which these copying errors occur. Though very slow—we acquire about one mutation every 6 generations—a few dozen mutations could appear after several millennia.
This sets the stage for researchers to compare competing models' predictions against measured mtDNA differences.
Bible-believing molecular biologist Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson downloaded publically available human mitochondrial genome sequence data to do exactly that. Publishing inAnswers Research Journal, his results show that the number of today's mtDNA differences exactly matches the number predicted by the Bible's 6,000 years of human history.1 Mitochondrial DNA from around the world shows no trace of the 200,000 or so years' worth of mutations that the evolution model predicts.
Geneticists construct tree diagrams using software that places the most similar genetic sequences near one another, and the most dissimilar sequences on the longest branches. Jeanson found at least two distinct patterns in the human mtDNA tree diagram that confirm Genesis.
The center of the diagram shows three main trunks. Each reflects a specific mtDNA sequence with only a handful of differences from the other two.
Could these three trunks represent the unique mtDNA from the wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth?
A second pattern emerges that also fits the three wives explanation. Assuming longer times between each generation, according to the biblical record of lifespans before the Flood, and using today's slow mutation rate, the 1,656 years between Adam and Noah would have produced the small number of differences that the short lines between each trunk represent.
Jeanson compared the small number of mtDNA differences between each trunk, or central node, with the relatively large number of differences in the branches. He wrote, "About 1,660 years passed from Creation to the Flood, whereas 4,365 years passed from the Flood to the present—a ~2.6:1 time ratio. Consistent with this, the branches connecting the nodes to one another were much shorter than the branches spraying out from the nodes—as if the short branches represented pre-Flood mutations, and the long branches represented post-Flood mutations."1
It appears that modern genetics confirms Genesis, which says, "So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him."2
This study produced two Genesis-confirming results. First, the human mtDNA tree has three trunks, which fits the Genesis model that all peoples descended from three foundational mothers—the wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Second, 6,000 years of today's slow mutation rate would exactly produce today's measured number of mtDNA differences. Genetics again confirms Genesis.
  1. Jeanson, N.T. 2016. On the Origin of Human Mitochondrial DNA Differences, New Generation Time Data Both Suggest a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model and Challenge the Evolutionary Out-of-Africa Model. Answers Research Journal. 9 (2016): 123-130.
  2. Genesis 8:18.
*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on May 16, 2016.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

2016 Summer Fairs

The What's the Evidence? booth will be at the following locations this summer:
Sauk County fair in Baraboo
July 13-17
Dane County Fair in Madison
July 20-24
Waukesha County Fair in Waukesha
July 20-24
WI State Fair in Milwaukee (West Allis)
August 4-14
Sheboygan County Fair in Plymouth
Sept. 1-5

Monday, April 25, 2016

Yes, The Earth's Population is Evidence the Bible is True

Our newest card discusses this topic. It's not too difficult to understand, even if you are not a numbers person. Enjoy...

Billions of People in Thousands of Years?

by Monty White on ; last featured January 7, 2008 
Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?” Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.


One Plus One Equals Billions

Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1
After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.

Impact of the Flood

We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.3 But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion. 

Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is
This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billions of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world’s population could have grown to the extent we now see it—over 6.5 billion. 

With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, “If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?” This is a question thatevolution supporters must answer.