Age of Ceres

Check out CMI http://www.creation.com for the this story by Jonathan O’Brien.

The dwarf planet Ceres is the largest body in the solar system’s asteroid belt, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Recently, NASA’s Dawn spacecraft made detailed fly-over inspections of Ceres and beamed back data that shocked many scientists.

Ceres shows clear signs of being very geologically active.1 For such a small body—only 1.28% the mass of our moon—Ceres has long-age-believing planetary scientists shaking their heads in wonder. One can almost hear them asking, “Are you Cerious!?”

The dwarf planet Ceres 

The mystery for evolutionists is how Ceres, which they believe to be very old, can still be so hot inside.

Ceres is too far away from large planets to receive an influx of energy from gravitational effects/tidal heating, and radioactive decay can’t provide the heat over billions of years either.

Secularists believe that planetary bodies were originally molten and gradually cooled. They predicted that Ceres, a miniature world floating alone in the coldness of space, and believed to be the same age as the solar system, would have become frozen and inactive eons ago.

It appears that tiny Ceres, with its lively, hot interior, is no more than a few thousand years old. This is consistent with the Bible’s record that God formed the earth first, around 6,000 years ago.


Many Christians try to reconcile the biblical age with the secular ages because there is such a massive disparity between the two – six thousand years and billions of years.  Because it is has become such a controversial issue most Bible Colleges have retreated from dealing with the subject and yet it is such a critical issue to belief in God’s Word. This CMI video does an excellent job of showing how simply it can be shown that the evidence in the rock layers supports a massive catastrophic event in the past that totally changed the earth’s topography and buried millions of things quickly (many are relevantly intact) in rock layers all over the earth. Suddenly, the billions of years have vanished and so has evolution. The Bible describes such an event and most civilisations around the world have such an event (Flood story) recorded in their history. 

OTHER HELPFUL RESOURCES:  1. Refuting Compromise https://creation.com/s/10-2-575,   2. The Age of the Earth DVD https://creation.com/s/30-9-534  3. What the Bible and Science Say About the Age of the Earth https://creation.com/s/30-9-55


Americans who identify as Christian but do not profess to know Christ personally as Savior — now comprise 54 percent of the U.S. population.

 Sadly, a Biblical world view is held by a declining number in denominational churches:

20% of those who attend evangelical Protestant churches.

16% of those who attend charismatic or Pentecostal churches .

8% of those who attend Protestant churches.

1% of those that attend Catholic churches

George Barna, research director at the Cultural Research Center based at Arizona Christian University, went on to explain that the dominant values in the United States today are acceptance, comfort, control, entertainment, entitlement, experiences, expression, freedom, and happiness. Those contemporary values highlight the profound contrast from previous eras in which a more widely accepted biblical worldview yielded civic duty, hard work, humility, faith, family, moderation and the rule of law.

Education at government schools and universities has been hostile to a biblical worldview ever since Darwinian evolution replaced biblical creation as the explanation for the existence of the Cosmos and more specifically Earth.

The age of the earth is a momentous issue. The Bible clearly teaches a young earth and fortunately the evidence supporting the Biblical view is now strong. Ministries such as Creation Ministries, Creation Research Institute, Answers in Genesis, all with a strong team of PhD scientists with distinguished careers are doing a great job. I am most familiar with CMI http://www.creation.com and can strongly recommend it as a source of information and resources.

Why is the age of the earth such a critical issue? You can’t have death and suffering before mankind which is the case with evolution.

God’s Word tells us there was no death prior to THE FALL. Adam and Eve’s SIN (rebellion against God – disobeyed His commandment not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. The consequences of doing so was death (spiritual then physical).

Two important creation issues you need to make yourself familiar with are:

1. The role Noah’s Flood in determining the age of the earth. It was a devastating worldwide flood that totally changed the geomorphology of this planet. It also buried billions of dead things quickly all over the world. What do we find? Billions of dead things in the fossil record, many intact demonstrating rapid burial, along with fossil fuel (oil) in abundance.

2. Genetic Entropy demonstrates that the human genome is deteriorating due to the accumulation of mutations. It has been irreversibly deteriorating since THE FALL and the rate of deterioration is such that human race is headed for extinction. The work of distinguished geneticist Dr John Sanford (invented the gene gun) and author of the book Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome has shown that the rate of deterioration is such that man could not have been on this earth longer than 6,000 years. Evolution cannot explain how complex information was formed in the genome in the first place and it has no answers on how to keep it there. Life is not going up, up up. It is going down, down, down.


Dinosaur-bone-cellsBone cells discovered by Schweitzer, showing classic appearances including nuclei and connecting fibrils—from a Brachylophosaurus allegedly 80 million years old!

Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty. They now have to explain how extremely delicate structures could have been preserved over incredibly vast time periods.

E.g, In 2009, researchers reported that they had found the fossilised remains of a fish brain—dated at 300 million years by evolutionary standards. John Maisey, the lead author, found it remarkable that brain tissue was preserved by fossilisation, since it consisted mainly of water.
Then, in 2016, researchers studying the remains of an Iguanadon-like creature reported not just fossilised brains, but unfossilised brain tissue. Dated by evolutionists at 133 million years, this fossil from Bexhill, England, was discovered more than a decade ago but only recently analysed. It was found to contain unfossilised protein fragments—brain tissue, fine capillaries, collagen structures, and the membrane that surrounds the brain. The authors attributed the brain tissue preservation to the highly acidic, low-oxygen environment in which it was found. However, such an acidic environment should have sped up rather than slowed the breaking down of brain tissue and protein.
How long can brain tissue last?

The existence of soft issue in fossils is hugely problematic to the idea that these fossils are millions of years old.

Believing proteins could last for tens of millions of years takes enormous faith. According to a report in the science journal The Biochemist, even if collagen were stored at 0°C, it would not be expected to last even three million years.8 But such is the power of the evolutionary paradigm that many choose to believe the seemingly impossible rather than accept the obvious implication, that the samples are not as old as they say.

8 Roach, J., Oldest fossil brain found in “bizarre” prehistoric fish, news.nationalgeographic.com, March 2009.
Brasier, M.D. et al., Remarkable preservation of brain tissue in an Early Cretaceous iguanodontian
dinosaur, Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. SP448.3, October 2016 | doi: 10.1144/SP448.3


Who cares about the age of earth? The evolutionists care about it a lot as there whole story is based on billions of years. This presentation presents considerable credible evidence for a young earth.

Whose interpretation of the facts will you believe?

Your eternal destiny depends upon knowing the truth and only God’s Word reveals the truth as given by the Creator of the Cosmos. If you have not read my recent post “What is Truth?” can I suggest you do so even before you watch this video.


How old is the earth? Six to ten thousand years old? Older? How precisely can a creation date be calculated? Does the Bible teach a six thousand year old Earth? Why do most scientists believe the earth is old? This Creation Ministries video explores one of the most controversial issues in the church, and answers these and many more questions regarding when God created.


Humans did not evolve from chimps, gorillas, or orangutans. However, according to Darwinian evolution, humans are related to modern apes in that we shared a common ancestor.

This informative article by Dr Don Batten and Warren Nunn of Creation Ministries will equip you to explode this commonly held notion.


Artists’ impressions of Homo erectus have most often depicted some really primitive, subhuman ‘ape-man’. However, the evidence that these were people (that should even share our species name) is mounting. So artists’ renditions are gradually shifting toward a much more obviously human appearance, as here.

Since Charles Darwin first proposed the basis for such ideas in the 19th century when he wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, molecules-to-man evolution has increasingly been taught as fact. Later, he fleshed out the idea of human evolution from a common ancestor with apes in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.

The concept that humans and apes share a common ancestor contrasts with what we read in the Bible, because on the sixth day God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26) Further, in verse 27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” In Genesis chapter 2 it gives us more details, including that God made Adam from ‘dust’ and fashioned Eve, the first woman, from part of his side.

The two contrasting explanations for our existence—and for apes—have obvious philosophical/faith starting points because neither side can go back in time and observe how everything came into being. Both sides can only examine what we have in the present and draw conclusions from that.

Biblical creationists accept the Bible as an eyewitness account of that—for us—unobservable beginning. Thus, we can expect that by examining anything from germs to giraffes, that the data will best fit the presupposition of a perfectly created life-form that now exists in a world that is imperfect because of the Fall (Genesis 3). Therefore, we can expect (predict) that all life-forms now are not as genetically ‘perfect’ as their first parents.

So, ‘Did humans evolve from apes’ is really part of the bigger question, ‘Did humans and apes, and everything else, evolve?’

The answer is no, nothing ‘evolved’ in the sense that Darwin proposed through naturalistic, unguided processes. Instead, God created everything (including Adam and Eve) in six, 24-hour days and it was very good, as we are told in Genesis 1:31.

Because we can trust the Bible as real history, we know that

(a) all life was created about 6,000 years ago,
(b) there was a global Flood of judgment on the world, which only eight humans and a limited number of creatures survived, and that
(c) all air-breathing land animals are descendants of those that walked off Noah’s Ark about 4,500 years ago.

The DNA evidence

Chimpanzees are said to be the closest relatives of humans. There is an oft-repeated claim that human-chimp DNA is 98% (or more) similar. This figure was based on rather primitive comparisons published in 1975. These early reports were popularized by evolutionists, but this was long before even the initial drafts of the human and chimp genome that were announced in 2001 and 2005, respectively. As explained in Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, and other places, with our modern understanding of genetics, we now know that “98%” is simply not the case.1 Even with genes that are similar between chimps and humans, the similarity is closer to 80%. If we consider the genes that chimps have that humans don’t and vice versa, the similarity drops to 70% or even less. However, the 98% myth persists.

An objective analysis of the claimed ape-men fossils shows that there is loads of wishful thinking involved.

Not enough time!

For the sake of the argument, let’s assume that the human and chimp genomes derived from a common genome in the six or seven million years since evolutionists say that humans and chimps split from the common ancestor. Then there is a need to account for 35,000,000 single-letter (base-pair) differences that had to arise and become fixed in the two genomes (i.e. the original letter in that location was replaced completely from the line to humans or the line to chimps); tens of millions of chromosomal rearrangements also had to occur, spread, and fix; as well as tens of millions of base-pair (‘letter’) insertions and deletions. (See Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels chapter 2 for more details). In short, there is simply insufficient time for evolutionists to account for the differences between chimp and human DNA, even with highly unrealistic assumptions in favour of it happening.2

Evolutionary time is measured in generations, not years. In six million years, there would only have been a few hundred thousand generations since chimps and humans were supposedly the same species. How then can there be enough time for so many brand-new genes to arise and be integrated? Each generation would have to select and retain an unbelievably huge number of mutations. This problem has come to be known as Haldane’s Dilemma. Despite claims to the contrary, Haldane’s Dilemma has never been solved. Modern knowledge of the genetic differences between chimps and humans shows that the problem is far greater for evolutionists than even Haldane imagined.3

Adam and Eve?

Studies of mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from your mother, show that all humans had a single female ancestor.4 Likewise, studies of the Y-chromosome, which is only inherited from your father (to son!), show that all humans had a single male ancestor.5 Of course the evolutionary time scales attached to these individuals don’t match the Bible, but recalculations based on measurements of mutation rates in today’s world show that the biblical time frame is consistent with the data.

The world-wide genetic evidence in humans is consistent with the Bible’s history, that we are all descendants of Noah’s family, beginning some 4,500 years ago.6

Genetic decay

The number of mutations added to the human genome each generation is now known to be so high that it is inevitable that the human genome is deteriorating. This points back to a created perfection in the recent past.7 The same problem applies to all other complex creatures. This is another serious problem for the evolutionary idea that mutations and natural selection created humans and chimps from a common ancestor 6–7 million years ago. As the Russian geneticist, Alexey Kondrashov, remarked, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times over?” (he was assuming the evolutionary time frame).8


Are there really ‘ape-men’? An objective analysis of the claimed ape-men fossils shows that there is much wishful thinking involved, which is driven by the desire to ‘prove evolution’, or to justify the funding from National Geographic (e.g.), given to find ‘ape-men’.

There are a range of Homo species, including Neandertals. These are all descendants of Noah’s family. One exception is Homo habilis (‘handy man’), which prominent evolutionary anthropologists acknowledge is a ‘mixed taxon’, meaning that the fossil bones came from both apes and humans (hence it not surprisingly looks like an ‘ape-man’).

Other than that, objective numerical analysis shows that Australopithecus (‘southern ape’), supposedly the ancestors of humans (Homo spp.), are just types of apes that are not intermediate between chimps and humans.

That is, based on the fossils, there is no coherent story of human evolution from a common ancestor with apes, which is not surprising, considering the genetic evidence that shows they never existed.9


By reading the associated links to this article and books such as Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, or by searching creation.com, you can learn more about this subject and when next someone asks you about any human-ape connection, you too will be able to gently suggest that they perhaps should take a closer look at the evidence.