Evidence for a 6,000-Year-Old Earth? You Have Been Lied To. EVOLUTION IS B.S.

For decades, the mainstream scientific community has operated under the assumption that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, relying heavily on radiometric dating as their foundation. However, this entire framework collapses if the key assumption of constant decay rates is incorrect. While secular scientists insist that decay rates have remained unchanged over billions of years, there is compelling evidence to suggest that they have indeed varied, which would render radiometric dating entirely unreliable. Given that we have only observed decay rates for less than a century, it is incredibly unscientific to blindly assume that these rates have remained static for billions of years.

The Problem with Assuming Constant Decay Rates

The scientific method requires direct observation and repeatable experimentation. Yet, when it comes to dating the Earth, scientists have never actually observed decay rates remaining constant over millions or billions of years—they have simply assumed it. This assumption forms the basis for the old Earth model, yet when we critically examine the data, we find major inconsistencies that challenge this belief. If decay rates were ever faster than they are today, then:

• Radiometric ages would be overestimated, meaning fossils and rocks could be much younger than claimed.

• The 4.5-billion-year age of the Earth would be invalidated.

• All dating models relying on this assumption would have to be reevaluated.

Evidence That Decay Rates Have Changed

Several key pieces of scientific evidence suggest that radioactive decay was much faster in the past, throwing doubt on the long-age assumptions. Here are three major examples:

• Helium in Zircon Crystals:

  • Zircons are small minerals found in deep rock layers that contain uranium, which decays into lead while also releasing helium as a byproduct. If radiometric dating is correct and these zircons are millions or billions of years old, then all helium should have escaped due to its rapid diffusion rate. However, scientists have discovered large amounts of helium still trapped in these zircons, which suggests that uranium decay must have happened much faster in the past. This finding strongly supports accelerated decay rather than a slow, constant process.

• Carbon-14 in Supposedly “Million-Year-Old” Materials

  • Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5,730 years, meaning it should be completely gone in any material older than 100,000 years. However, scientists have detected Carbon-14 in coal, oil, and even diamonds, which are supposed to be millions or even billions of years old. If these materials were truly that old, there should be zero detectable Carbon-14 left. The presence of C-14 suggests one of two possibilities:

    1. The material is not actually millions of years old.

    2. Carbon-14 decay was slower in the past, meaning our dating calculations are completely off.

    Either way, this contradicts the conventional old Earth model.

• Soft Tissue in Fossils

  • Perhaps one of the most shocking discoveries in recent years is the presence of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. Scientists have found blood vessels, collagen, and other organic materials inside dinosaur bones that are supposedly 65+ million years old. But here’s the problem—such soft tissue should completely degrade within thousands, not millions, of years. The only logical conclusion is that these fossils are far younger than mainstream science claims. This is strong evidence that the Earth is much younger than previously thought.

The Heat Problem and Accelerated Decay

One counterargument raised by old Earth scientists is that if decay rates were faster in the past, it should have generated intense heat—potentially enough to destroy the Earth. While this is an interesting challenge, it assumes that we fully understand all past conditions. Several alternative models propose that changes in decay rates may have been caused by external factors such as cosmic radiation or divine intervention, which could have mitigated the expected heat effects.

The Implications of a Young Earth

If decay rates have indeed changed (which evidence suggests that it has), then radiometric dating cannot be trusted, and the entire old Earth framework falls apart. When we consider the evidence of accelerated decay, Carbon-14 in “ancient” materials, helium retention in zircons, and soft tissue in fossils, we find that the data strongly supports a young Earth model. If we use Biblical chronologies alongside these scientific findings, it places the age of the Earth at around 6,000 years old, not billions.

For too long, mainstream science has clung to an unproven assumption—that decay rates have remained unchanged for billions of years. However, the physical evidence contradicts this idea. Instead of blindly accepting the old Earth model, we should recognize the overwhelming flaws in radiometric dating and consider an alternative explanation: that the Earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

By following the actual data rather than assumptions, we arrive at a conclusion that aligns with both scientific observation and historical records—a young Earth, created thousands, not billions, of years ago.

It is a SERIOUS issue when a scientific theory is widely accepted as fact without full acknowledgment of its contradictions and unresolved problems. Science should be about constant questioning, re-evaluating evidence, and rejecting assumptions that don't hold up under scrutiny—yet, when it comes to evolution and deep time, many simply accept it without critically examining the major contradictions in the physical evidence.

1. Evolution is Treated as "Untouchable," Even When Contradictions Exist

• Evolution is presented in textbooks, schools, and media as an absolute fact rather than a theory with significant gaps.

• Dissenting scientists who question evolution are often silenced, ridiculed, or ignored, rather than engaging in an open debate.

  
  

🔎 Critical Question: If science is about challenging ideas, why is evolution treated as if it is above criticism?

2. Contradictions in Physical Evidence

Mainstream science says billions of years of gradual change shaped life on Earth, yet the physical evidence doesn’t fully support this.

A. The Fossil Record Does NOT Show Gradual Evolution

• Darwin himself admitted that the lack of gradual transition fossils was a problem.

• We still don’t see clear, step-by-step transitions from one species to another—only sudden appearances of fully formed species.

• The Cambrian Explosion (where most major life forms appeared suddenly) directly contradicts gradual evolution.

  
  

🔎 Critical Question: If evolution is true, why don’t we see millions of clear transitional fossils?

B. Soft Tissue in “65+ Million-Year-Old” Fossils

• If dinosaurs went extinct 65+ million years ago, how is it possible that scientists have found soft tissue, blood vessels, and proteins in their fossils?

• Biological material should decay completely within thousands of years, even under ideal conditions.

  
  

🔎 Critical Question: If the fossils are really millions of years old, why is soft tissue still present?

C. Genetic Entropy: DNA is Degrading, Not Evolving

• The mutation rate in DNA shows that genetic information is degrading over time, not improving.

• Mutations cause diseases and loss of function, not the creation of new, beneficial traits.

• Evolution requires DNA to add new, complex information, but all observed mutations result in a net loss of information.

  
  

🔎 Critical Question: If evolution is supposed to improve organisms over time, why is our DNA accumulating harmful mutations instead?

D. Dating Methods Are Built on Assumptions

• Radiometric dating assumes constant decay rates, yet we have evidence that decay rates have changed.

• Carbon-14 is found in fossils and materials that should be millions of years old—proving that something is wrong with dating assumptions.

  
  

🔎 Critical Question: How can we trust radiometric dating when the basic assumptions behind it are flawed?

3. Evolution is a Belief System, Not Just Science

• Evolution claims to be based on observable, testable science, but no one has observed macroevolution happening.

• It requires just as much faith to believe that life evolved from random chance as it does to believe in a designed creation.

  
  

🔎 Critical Question: Why is evolution pushed so aggressively when it has so many inconsistencies?

4. The Real Reason Evolution is Widely Accepted

• It’s not because the evidence is overwhelming—it’s because the alternative (a Creator) is rejected outright.

• Materialist scientists start with the assumption that God does not exist, so they must accept evolution, no matter how flawed it is.

• The educational system indoctrinates people with evolution from childhood without showing them the contradictions.

  
  

🔎 Critical Question: Are we really doing science, or are we defending an anti-God worldview?

Conclusion: We Need to Start Questioning Evolution

✔ Evolution isn’t a fact—it’s a theory full of contradictions.

✔ The fossil record, soft tissue in fossils, genetic entropy, and flawed dating methods all challenge the old Earth and evolution model.

✔ People blindly accept evolution because they’re told it’s “scientific,” but real science should encourage open debate, not suppress criticism.

✔ It’s time to stop treating evolution as untouchable and start questioning the true history of our world.

🔎 Final Question: What would happen if people realized they have been lied to?