1 – Introduction
2 – Instantaneous Creation
3 – Recent Creation
4 – Starlight, Star Distances, and the Speed of Light
5 – Genesis Is Scientific
6 – Creation versus Gradual Evolution Debate: a Summary
7 – Naturalism versus Super-Naturalism
8 – Big Bang Theory
9 – Astronomy and Academia
10 – Astrology: Earth at the Center of the Universe?
11 – Life on Other Worlds? And Conclusion
Appendix 1: Outline of the Days of Creation
Appendix 2: Scientists’ Opinions on Big Bang Theory
3 – Recent Creation
Related to the instant-creation issue (from the previous post) is the question of why do we find it difficult to believe Earth and the universe to be young? It’s mostly because we’ve been convinced otherwise by what are considered to be the expert and knowledgeable opinions of science. Those expert opinions are rooted in 1) the age-dating techniques of radioactivity, 2) the geology of gradual erosion, and 3) knowledge about star distances and the speed of light.
Radioactive Dating:
The invention of more sensitive equipment in recent times, along with a more thorough understanding of how radioactive processes work, have turned the tables on this method of age calculation. With more up-to-date methods coming into use now, radioactive dating is starting to prove the Earth’s age is not old at all, but quite young! (These recent developments are examined in Post 5A of Retrieving Our Lost Heritage.)
Geology of Gradual Erosion:
The posts 2A-D and 3A-D in Retrieving Our Lost Heritage explain how the origin of Earth’s landscape is better understood in terms of the catastrophic forces that were unleashed during the Great Flood. From the geologic and fossil evidence, it is obvious that present geologic processes (mainly gradual erosion, occasional earthquake and volcanic activity) could never have resulted in the formation of the fossil/geologic structures we see in the earth today.
Massive changes in Earth’s landscape were fashioned, at a rapid pace, during the worldwide flooding and crustal re-shaping of landforms that took place as a result of the Genesis Flood cataclysm and did not require millions of years of time. This was not a cosmic accident, a capricious act of nature; it was God’s purposeful intervention into the affairs of humankind – a reboot of colossal proportions! (See in Post 6C “The Flood: God’s Intolerable Compliment”.)
If one looks honestly at the geologic and fossil evidence, it becomes obvious that the Flood cataclysm does a much better job of explaining the origin of Earth’s geological structures than do the many complex, confusing, and contradictory theories of gradual erosion and earth movements.
The natural conclusion here: if earth’s landforms were re-created so quickly in the Flood cataclysm, then Earth itself could have been created quickly; and if that is so, then the solar system too; and from there, the rest of the universe.
By the way, there are several other indicators, which bring to light, with scientific clarity, the fact that the theorized millions or billions of years for Earth’s and the universe’s age, can be whittled down, quite easily, to a few thousand years. These may be found in posts 5B-5F and cover evidences based on geology and fossils, outer space, population growth, history and culture.
Star Distances and the Speed of Light:
Of particular interest for this study are those phenomena pertaining to the age of the universe: supernovas, blue stars, disintegrating comets, decaying magnetic fields, rotating spiral galaxies.
(1) Supernovas happen when a star’s nuclear fuel has been exhausted, triggering sudden gravitational collapse. The result is a tremendous release of energy and an expanding cloud-like structure, which can be easily visible on Earth. Scientists know the rate at which supernovas are forming. The strange thing, however, is the fact that, if the universe is as old as is claimed, then there should be many more supernovas in our galaxy than are actually there. In addition, all the supernovas in existence now are in their early stages of development.
(2) Blue stars are the most massive and luminous type of star. They can only last a few million years because they expend their fuel rapidly. Yet we observe untold numbers of them in galaxies that are supposed to be billions of years old. Again, we see evidence pointing to the fact that even the Universe, as vast as it is, was created in the recent past, and by supernatural means.
(3) As comets approach the Sun, they lose material, and some have burned out the first time they have been observed making this journey. If the universe were billions of years old, there shouldn’t be any comets left; all would have burned out by now. Secular astronomers have speculated that there is something called an “Oort Cloud” where comets are continually being manufactured; however, there is no scientific proof or observation to tell us that such a “cloud” actually exists. It is just a theory offered to explain in evolutionary terms the difficult question of why our Solar System still has comets.
(4) Earth and the other planets in our Solar System all have strong magnetic fields, which are in the process of decay. This rate of decay for Earth’s magnetic field is known (5% per century); it was 40% stronger in A.D. 1000. Only 20,000 years ago, a much stronger magnetic field would have made Earth’s energy level so high that water could not have covered the planet. Earth and the other planets, it would appear, could not have been created very long ago.
(5) “The disk [of our Milky Way galaxy] has higher concentrations of luminous stars in some regions than others, forming a spiral structure. Many other galaxies also have this spiral structure, and this presents a problem for those people who believe that the universe is billions of years old. Spiral galaxies rotate faster near their core than they do near their perimeter. As a result, they are constantly twisting tighter with time and would be twisted beyond recognition if they were billions of years old. All spiral galaxies therefore appear quite young.” (Excerpt from “The Knowledge of the Night”, Institute for Creation Research)
(6) Astronomers are perplexed by the fact that Saturn and its rings look pristine and youthful. “Because the icy particles that make up the rings are continually bombarded by space dust, they should be dark and sooty after billions of years. Instead, since the icy particles are still bright and shiny, they must be relatively young. And if the rings are young, Saturn itself might be young too!” (Excerpt from “Picture Perfect: a Youthful Saturn” by Dr. Jake Hebert, 24 August 2020)
Regarding the origin of the solar system, astronomers have gone to extraordinary lengths in trying to explain how its many “anomalies” came to be – peculiar features in our solar system that fit the Creationist viewpoint but don’t fit into the evolutionary perspective. The essay “Cosmic Catastrophes” by Spike Psarris (October, 2010) pokes fun at astronomers’ desperate efforts to explain the solar system’s origin according to standard evolutionary doctrine.
Although there are several indicators above (and many others not mentioned) to show that the universe could be quite young, there is still the question of star distances, starlight, and the speed of light, which seem to suggest that the universe is extraordinarily old. This will be the subject of the next (and following) posts.
At any rate it should not surprise us that some aspects of the universe appear old. If God created it for our use, then He would have created it mature, ready-made for us to dwell in. But because God created it recently, then many aspects still appear young, as outlined in the examples above. If everything looked old, then we might have reason to think the universe really is billions of years old. But that is not the case. It is this peculiar, mixed-up, young/old appearance of age that is just what we’d expect in a natural realm that was created only a few thousand years ago, ready-made for us to live in.
So much depends on what one wants to believe. If a person wants to believe that Earth and the universe were created recently, well, there is plenty of evidence for that. If a person wants to believe that it was a process that took billions of years to happen, then there is evidence for that also. But to do so, one would have to ignore the scientific evidences of recent Creation, and ignore the simple fact that the Creator fashioned our environmental home for us ready-made, so that we could start dwelling in it.
