THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

Seminar 2

Tim Nordgren 2-1-01

Setup: (1) Xerox “Evidence for a Young World.” (2) Post My webpage address and Dual Revelation. (2) Book: Creation’s Tiny Mystery

“The heavens declare the glory of God.” Psalm 19:1

Introduction:

Ecc 3:11, "He has… set eternity in the hearts of men yet they can not fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

• While we all hunger for answers concerning our origins and destiny, God has reserved this knowledge for Himself and those who will listen to His revealed Word.

A Brief History of Cosmology

1. Here we will start with what could be called a "Brief History of Ancient Cosmology." In the first diagram we see the Babylonian belief concept of a universe with a sky-dome, which sat on a wall surrounding a sea-ditch, mounted on the backs of four white horses, and these on top of a turtle. Such an idea has an interesting similarity to ancient Hindu cosmologies and when the Hindu mystics were asked on what the turtle stood the response was, "It's turtles all the way down." In this case and all others outside the Bible, cosmology takes on an evolutionary perspective, since even with a suggestion of creation, such a creation always begins with some pre-existing materials from which all other materials are derived. Only in the Bible do we find true creation "Ex Nihilo (eks ne-uh-lo)," that is, creation out of nothing.

2. Now many have heard of the Sumerian cosmology set forth in the Enuma elish epic. Because this story exhibits some oblique similarities with the Genesis account, some have chosen to believe that the Biblical description was derived from a myth. However, a close comparison of the two stories leads to a more reasonable conclusion. This Sumerian myth, like all other pagan cosmologies, begins with preexisting, rudimentary materials-in this case a "watery abyss"-from which even the "creator gods" originate. Further, it is focused on feuds between deities, the concerns of preferred city-states, and founding political leaders. In contrast to this, the Biblical account uniquely presents God as the eternal Creator who created everything out of nothing, starting with the heavens and the earth and this would include "the waters." In this case the presentation of origins is from a universal perspective. The best explanation for the origin of the Sumerian cosmology would be that this clearly mythical story was derived from the earlier Biblical story and then as it was passed down through the generations it departed from the original to arrive at this degenerate form.

3. Next we look at the Greeks. The earliest Greeks believed in a universe that consisted of a flat disk and, of course, the center of that disk was at Mt. Olympus. In the second diagram we see the later Greek belief. Here it was thought that since Atlas had fought in a war against the deities of Mount Olympus, he was condemned to forever bear on his back the earth, the heavens, and the great pillar that separates them.

4. Then, in 300BC, Aristotle authoritatively set forth the concept of an earth-centered universe. In the third diagram we see the earth at the center of the universe with the sun, moon, and stars orbiting the earth. This, "geocentric world view" would go on to influence western science for some 1,800 years.

4. 150A.D. Ptolomy, Alexandrian Astronomer (See: Ptolomy’s Geocentric Universe)

• He published his 'Almagest' in which he set forth his own “geocentric” view that depended on Aristotle’s philosophies of “perfect” concentric spheres containing the moon, planets, sun, and stars.

• This view went unchallenged for over 1,400 years.

• The scientific establishment during this period fully embraced this view, even claiming scriptural justification in Psalm 93 (earth unmoved). Yet the acceptance of this view depended first on the Church embracing Aristotle’s philosophies.

6. 1500 A.D, Copernicus: Turned the world upside down

• He concluded, based on observation, that the earth was not the immovable center of the universe.

• That is, the Earth orbited around the sun!

6. 1600 A.D, Kepler:

• He theorized an elliptical (or oblong circular) orbit. (See: Kepler’s Eliptical Orbit)

• Note: Kepler was a faithful Christian:

• He said, “I had the intention of becoming a theologian…but now I see how God is, by my endeavours, also glorified in astronomy, for “the heavens declare the glory of God.” (Ann Lamont, 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible. (Creation Science Foundation, Queensland, Australia,1995))

• He was apparently the first scientist to state that he was merely “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” (www.answersingenesis.org/docs/343.asp, 1/30/01)

8. Then in the 1600’s came Galileo (See: Galileo Galilei)

• He was among the first to turn a telescope to the heavens

• He published his observations and conclusions in the common people's language in a work called “The Great Systems of the Universe”

• Because this was perceived as an act of “theological arrogance” he was forced to recant by the Catholic Church. (He wrote to Tuscan Grand Duchess Christina that the scriptures show “the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.”)

• Now what about that scriptural justification in Psalm 93? (See: Galileo, The Church and the Scriptures—Psalm 93:1,2)

• Yet Psalm 97:1-4 has another picture. ? (See: Galileo, The Church and the Scriptures—Psalm 97:1-4)

• It has been rightly said, "Terra-firma is not firm. Only God is unmoved."

• Only recently has Rome retracted its error (Oct 1992)

• But now it has given tacit approval to evolution. (Pope John Paul II, Message to the Potifical Academy of Sciences, Oct 22, 1996) (See my paper on “Dual Revelation”)

• Now, What is the lesson that (protestant) Christians should learn from Galileo? (Adapted from an article on the Christian Answers Net)

Ironically, the traditional beliefs that Galileo opposed ultimately belonged to Aristotle, not to [the Bible]. Pagan philosophy had become interwoven with traditional Catholic teachings… Therefore, the Church's dogmatic retention of tradition was the major seat of controversy, not the Bible. It may also be noted that Pope Urban VIII was himself sympathetic to Galileo, but was not willing to stand against the tide of controversy. In reality, the majority of persecution seemed to come from [Aristotelian] scientists whose monopoly of educational authority had been threatened…

The lesson to be learned from Galileo… is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology and held to [the] tradition [of Aristotle] rather than to the teachings of the Bible. We must hold strongly to Biblical doctrine, which has been achieved through sure methods of… [interpretation]. We must never be satisfied with dogmas built upon… [man’s] traditions.

2. Modern Cosmology

1. Albert Einstein, an icon of modern science

• In 1905 he published his Special theory of Relativity, that is, with no acceleration:

• At velocities near speed of light there is a dilation of space, time, & mass.

• In 1916 Einstein published his General theory of Relativity. In it he proposed that gravity is not a force, as previously assumed, but a curved field in the space-time continuum that is due to the presence of mass.

• Results: Space is curved (See: Relativity & Curved Space)

2. Edwin Hubble & Hubble's Law (1929):

• He observed a “redshift” in light spectra from those stars apparently most distant

• Resulting Implication: Expanding Universe. (See: The Expanding Universe)

The speed at which dots recede from each other is greater the further they are away, no matter what portion of the balloon they are on. Redshift is proportional to the speed of recession and thus, the most distant stars are most red-shifted.

The velocity of expansion is expressed in the equation:

v = Hr

in which v is velocity, r is distance between two points, and H, called Hubble's constant, is a proportionality value that relates velocity and distance.

• Redshift & The Doppler Effect: (See: The Doppler Effect)

• Problems:

• There are often several different shifts in one object:

• Galaxy NGC 4319 (velocity 1800 km/s) and nearby quasar Markarian (velocity 21,000km/s). Interpretation: Galaxy at 107 million light years away, yet the quasar would be 12 times farther away, or 1.2 billion light years.

• But they're connected by a luminous bridge!

• Andromeda galaxy (2M L-yrs away) is blue shifted

• The redshift is “quantized”:

• Does not vary continuously. Instead there are discrete values for different galaxy types, even in the same cluster (William Tifft, Discover Magazine, Apr-93)

• Even so, most scientists believe the universe is expanding.

• Thus these scientists conduct a "thought experiment"--"What would happen if we ran the clock backwards?"

• Result: A beginning

This idea contradicts a certain religion, which is known as “Scientific Naturalism”

• Einstein: "This circumstance [of an expanding universe] irritates me." Further he says, "To admit to such possibilities seems senseless." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers)

• Arthur Eddington: "I have no axe to grind in this discussion," but, "the notion of a beginning is repugnant to me." (Jastrow)

• Alan Sandage of Palomar Observatory: "It is such a strange conclusion ... it cannot really be true." (Jastrow)

The Solution: An expanding universe of Infinite Age (See: Various Modern Cosmologies

• )

• Lemaitre/Eddington Hesitation Model (1944?): (Origin in unobservable time)

• Hoyle's Steady State Model (1948): (Hydrogen Gushers in unobservable space)

• Creation without a Creator

4. The Big Bang Model

• Another Thought Experiment: "What happens when all matter comes together at this so-called beginning?

Well, as it turns out, Einstein's equations for general relativity allowed the possibility that gravitational forces could increase to such an extent that all matter in the universe could collapse to a point.

• i.e. "The Big Crunch!"

• Search for a Black Holes

• Problem: It is not possible to observe a black hole directly… however we expect that the effects can be observed. (Explain)

• From the notion of “infinite density” follows “inherent instability”

• Result: Ka-Boom! ... The Big Bang (See: Ka-Boom! ... The Big Bang

• )

• Problem: The idea of a "Beginning" remains

• Another solution offered: The Oscillating Big Bang (See: Various Modern Cosmologies again

• )

• Origin: Eastern Mysticism, Buddhism, Hinduism

• Goal: Eternal Universe

• Problem: Only 1-10% of matter required is observable

• Solution: Cold Dark Matter (CDM). Since 90% to 99% of the matter required for an oscillating universe is unobserved, it must exist in the form of Black Holes, exotic matter, and other unobservable forms.

• (Note: claimed evidence is "Newly discovered giant cloud which should have dispersed aeons ago, were it not for gravity generated by some 20 trillion sun's worth of unseen matter." (Time, Jan 18, 93). However, a young universe would be a much more simple explanation.)

• Later, Stephen Hawking offered his solution for the problem of a beginning--imaginary time

• Another thought experiment (See: Stephen Hawking)

• Imagine that when the universe contracts, time runs backwards, i.e. the broken glass "un-breaks" or re-assembles itself, the water "un-spills" and the glass jumps back onto to the counter from which it fell. At the end of this “universe in reverse” process, Hawking introduces a mathematical construct called "imaginary time" which, it is claimed, solves the math problem of a beginning.

• Says Carl Sagan, in the introduction to "A Brief History of Time", "Hawking is attempting, as he explicitly states, to understand the mind of God. And this makes all the more unexpected the conclusion of the effort, at least so far: a universe with no edge in space, no beginning or end in time, and nothing for a Creator to do."

• In Hawking's own words: "What place, then, for a creator?" (p.141)

2. Bumps In The Big Bang Theory

1. Background On "Background Noise"

• 1964: Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered that the earth is bathed in low intensity microwave electromagnetic radiation.

• Immediately evolutionists claimed this was the confirming death whimper of their theorized Big Bang explosion.

• Note: The model was chosen to agree with what appeared to be a smooth, even pattern of radiation.

• This demanded a smooth, even distribution of matter in the universe.

• So far, so good, with the observations of that time.

2. The Crisis Begins (ICR Impact, June 91)

• 1986: Brent Tully of University of Hawaii observed ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 M L-yrs long & 100 M L-yrs thick. Voids 300 million L-yrs across.

• At speeds claimed by Big Bang theorists it would take 80 B yrs to create such structures.

• Yet universe only supposed to be 15-20 B yrs old

• 1989: Margret Geller and John Huchra Of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics discovered the "Great Wall." Huge Sheet of galaxies 200 M Lyrs across and 700 M L yrs long

• 1990:Team of American, British and Hungarian astronomers discovered structures with patterns that stretched across one-quarter of the universe, or [3] B L-yrs long!

• This would require 150 B yrs to form according to velocities given by the Big Bang Model!

• 1991: Will Saunders and team of nine published results of their "all-sky" redshift survey derived from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite.

• They concluded that there were far greater sized structures than can be accounted for by the Big Bang theory.

Some Last Minute Fixes (“Bumps in the Big Bang,” “Impact” No. 233, Russell Humphreys, www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-233.htm, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses,” “Impact” No. 216, Duane Gish, http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm)

• Now, with the Big Bang Theory in such a state of crisis, certain “adjustments” to the model were long overdue. This brings us to the Inflationary Big Bang model. Now in the diagram, as before

, the vertical axis has to do with the expansion of space and the horizontal axis with the unfolding of time, however, in this case the increments of time are unimaginably small. The first increment being indicated at 10^-32 sec. That is, after the decimal point there are over thirty zeros before we come to the first significant figure. This is the time period over which virtually all the expansion of the universe is supposed to have occurred.

• Now, in a quote taken from the July 92, Scientific American they describe this model as follows: “In tiny fraction of a second (10^-32 sec or so) the universe expanded a mind boggling factor of 10⁺³⁰ or more.”

• Now, here we need to take note of other statements made in Scientific American. For instance in one article they say, “We know what happened at 10^-43 sec after the beginning."

However, now we must ask in what possible sense can they say that they know that a certain thing happened over such an incredibly small period of time and that over ten billion years ago? Of course we realize that they have developed a particular mathematical/physical model from which they make certain predictions, however we should also realize that such statements have nothing whatever to do with observational science.

• But with all these grand claims the inflationary Big Bang does not even solve what is called the “clumpiness” problem within the universe. That is, the walls, filaments, and voids that we observe on a universal scale.

• Once again, though, evolutionary cosmologists call upon CDM: They asked, “What if 99% of the matter in universe is unobservable? Would the resulting gravitational forces be enough?

• 1991: George Djorgovski, a Caltech cosmologist concluded, flatly, No! (Nature, 349:32-38, 1991)

• He claimed at that time that this analysis would bring about the demise of the CDM theory.

3. This brings us to what we might call the “Search For Bumps, Lumps & Clumps” in the Background Radiation.

• Now, originally, Penzias & Wilson discovered smooth background radiation, which was taken as evidence for the Big Bang.

• But now the “smoothness” contradicts the massive clumpiness of the observable universe!

• All of these conclusions made it apparent that a new level of observation was required. Thus came the development of what is called the Cosmic Background Explorer, or COBE probe.

• This was an extremely sensitive instrument designed to measure variation, or bumpiness in the background radiation. It was launched into space to make very careful and accurate measurements of the full sky. (Lecture notes James Bardeen, UW, 3-6-92; David Wilkinson (COBE co-designer), Princeton, 5-18-93)

• Then, after many months, in March of 1992, there was a failure to differentiate background noise from the noise of the universe to 1 part per hundred thousand. Now at that time, James Bardeen, a University of Washington cosmologist summarized the situation saying, "This is embarrassing for the Big Bang advocates." And indeed it was.

• But, then in April 92, came the media blitz. Headlines declared there was now "Proof For The Big Bang"

• Dr Michael Turner (Univ. Chicago) announced, "They have found the Holy Grail of cosmology!"

• Dr George Smoot (Univ. Calif., Berkley) declared, "If you're religious its like looking at God!" (See: George Smoot)

• So what does "God" look like? (See: Background Radiation and “Face of God?” COBE Full-sky map) (A measurement of one part per hundred thousand)

Source for FIGURE: 7 (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/bang2.html)

Cosmic Background Radiation:

A small lack of uniformity in the background radiation is probably essential to the ultimate formation of the galaxies. The luminous matter in the universe that we observe on large scales is quite lumpy, as illustrated in the…figure.

Large-Scale Structure of the Universe:

Data from the survey of galaxies. The voids and "walls" that form the large-scale structure are mapped here by 11,000 galaxies. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is at the center. The outer radius is at a distance of approximately 450 million light-years. Obscuration by the plane of the Milky Way is responsible for the missing pie-shaped sectors to the right and left. Click on the image to get a larger version. (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1993. Northern data (top)--Margaret Geller and John Huchra, Southern data (bottom)--Luiz da Costa et al. Quoted in Cosmology, a Research Briefing, National Academy of Sciences.)

• Now let’s go back again to May 92: As I mentioned, I attended a lecture by David Wilkinson of Princeton who was the Co-designer of The COBE Probe (UW lecture)

• He revealed that the probe was not designed to measure what was only later claimed to be confirmation of the predicted Big Bang background radiation. You see, the theory predicted a far greater level of variation than was actually observed.

• Instrument noise: 150 mK=> (a thousand times the thing to be measured)

• Mechanical switch noise alone was: 70 uK=>7 parts per hundred thousand

• Results were derived from complex statistical analysis and using special "algorithms"

• To quote Wilkinson: "These measurements support, but do not "prove" The Big Bang."

• They completely ignored the less exotic but obvious explanation, offered in 1970 by Sunyaev and Zel'dovich, of gas clouds in the intervening space that the radiation would collide with resulting in Compton scattering and therefore a variation like that observed. (ICR Impact, Nov 92)

• (See: Background Radiation & Compton Scattering)

• Yet the Media Blitzed, the Color Sky Map as “More Proof for the Big Bang" (See: Scientific American, July 92)

4. Now What Does All This Really Mean?

• Clumpy large scale structure of the universe demands that energy in a Big Bang be bumpy. (See & Explain: Background Radiation & Large Scale Structure of the Universe)

• You see, the COBE probe was actually sent out to find proof needed to save the Big Bang theory.

• The instrument was designed to find the smallest allowed variations predicted by the most hopeful Inflationary Big Bang model.

• When the limits of this $200M instrument were exceeded most gave up all hope for any form of the Big Bang theory.

• Then came the colorful pictures and quotes and the rest is history.

• My Summary:(After David Wilkenson's lecture)

• The Inflationary Big Bang Theory is an attempt to reconcile the radical contradictions between the clumpiness of the large scale structure of the universe and the smoothness of the background radiation. This theory did not "predict" the measurements actually taken by COBE, but rather demanded that there be some variations in order that the theory not go down in flames. As it stands today, the measured background radiation cannot be taken as confirmation of the Big Bang theory, but only a mere allowance that it is not utterly impossible.

• Now all of this may cause some to think that I don't believe in a Big Bang. In fact, I believe that the Bible says something very clearly about a Big Bang.

• 2 Peter 3:10 says; "But the day of the Lord will come as thief in the night; in the which the heavens will pass away with a great noise [Big Bang], and the elements shall melt with ferverent heat, the earth also and the works… therein shall be burned up."

• It is at the end of the world—not the beginning—that we should expect the Big Bang!

D. The Real Problem And The Solution

• In the last 50 years there have been more than 7 major cosmological models that have come and gone. (See: Various (4) Modern Cosmologies again

1. )

• Each is in some ways different, but they all have one thing in common. They all claim processes that happen either in unobservable space or in unobservable time. Often, they speculate about the existence of unobservable matter.

• By the standard definition of science, anything that cannot be observed directly, or indirectly, is not science!

• Now, if we are going to claim knowledge that is unattainable by any human being then let us at least receive it from a reliable source.

• Recall Job 38:4. => In the words of Ken Ham, "WERE YOU THERE?"

• God was. The Bible states it this way, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen 1:1.

• Further if we are going to claim scientific knowledge then let us look at what scientists have actually observed and not their speculations.

2. The 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermo-Dynamics.

• The First Law of Thermo-Dynamics:

• Nothing is now being created or destroyed.

• The key word is “now” for the creationist.

• This implies the Energy/Mass equivalence: E = mc²

• Invalidates the Steady State "Theory"

• The Second Law of Thermodynamics:

• On average, all things go from higher energy to lower energy, from order to disorder.

• (Isaac Asimov:(Biblical Basis For Modern Science, p188)

‘“Another way of stating the Second Law, then is: “The universe is constantly getting more disorderly." Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order; how easy it is to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself--and that is what the Second Law is all about.")

• The Entire Universe is Running Down To a Cold Death!

In the entire history of science there has never been a single observation that has contradicted these two laws.

• What do these two most fundamental laws mean? Well, since there are no perpetual motion machines in the universe, then we should not expect that the universe itself would be a perpetual motion machine.

• In fact, since the First and Second Laws are known to be true, if the universe were eternal, it would already be dead!

E. Evidence For A Young Universe

• There are many different ways to estimate the age of the universe, many of which contradict each other. All require that certain things be assumed which cannot be verified with any certainty. Here the weakness is in not in the scientific method, since it simply does not apply to historical events, but rather a reliance on the concept of "uniformitarianism."

• Uniformitarianism is the philosophical belief that only those slow and gradual processes observed in the present can account for the origin of things in the past. In Darwin’s day, there was essentially no allowance for catastrophic events in the past. Therefore, such catastrophic events as the Genesis Flood were not allowed.

• Only recently have evolutionists set aside strict uniformitarianism since it is so obviously wrong in so many known cases.

• For example: Now catastrophes are claimed as the solution for geologic structures such as the Grand Canyon, Washington’s Grand Coulee, Fossil Forests of Yellow Stone, etc. It is also called upon as an explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs (meteor or volcano). However, only the Genesis Flood can explain the entire fossil record.

• A UW geophysics lecturer recently asserted that it would take “10 times the water in all the rivers of the world” to produce the Grand Coulee gorge.

• Today, evolutionists actually claim that the rugged surface of Mars was formed by catastrophic floodwaters.

• Just think of it. On Mars, which has no liquid water at all, the surface if supposed to be explained by a global flood, yet on Earth, where there is water everywhere, the idea of global flood is called “absurd.”

• Now, there is no one method of age estimation that is reliable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, it would seem that the best approach would be to take a broad survey of these different physical "chronometers" and see how well they agree.

• Here it can be stated that approximately "90 % of all the processes that one could use to measure the age of the universe actually favor a young world." (Dr. Russel Humphreys, Sandia National Laboratories, Creation Ex Nihilo, Jun-Aug 93, p23)

Yet only those that favor an extremely old universe are mentioned in the public. There are hundreds that could be listed that set the maximum age at much less than the 10-20 billion years required by the Big Bang "theory." Several of these are listed below: (Creation Ex Nihilo, Jun-Aug 91) (Hand out copies to class) (See: Evidence for a Young Earth)

1. The galaxies wind up too fast. Max age: several million years (S/B: 10 B yrs)

2. Comets Disintegrate too quickly. Max age: 100,000 years (S/B: 10 B yrs)

3. Earth's continents erode too fast. Max age: 15 million years (S/B: 5 B yrs)

4. Not enough sediment on the sea floors. Max age: 15 million years (S/B: 200 M yrs)

5. Ocean accumulates sodium too fast. Max Age: 60 million years (S/B: 3 B yrs)

6. The energy in the earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast. Max age: 10,000 years (S/B: 5 B yrs)

7. Multilayer fossils straddle too many strata. Example of fossil trees. Max age: several years (S/B: millions of years)

8. Many strata are too tightly bent. Max age: several thousand years (S/B: 100 M yrs)

9. Out of sequence fossils scramble timetable. Casts doubt on entire evolutionary timetable

10. Not enough helium in earth's atmosphere. Max age 2 M years (S/B: 5 B yrs) (Note: Here we assume that there was no helium in beginning. If it is assumed that a functional atmosphere was created 10,000 years ago, the helium today is in perfect accord with the Bible.)

11. Fossil radioactivity shortens "geologic ages" to several years. (S/B 5 B yrs) (See: Creation’s Tiny Mystery)

• Now, as many of us know there are a number of ways that evolutionists attempt to date the rocks of the Earth. The most familiar methods are based on what are called radiometric (or radioisotope) dating systems. These include the Potassium-Argon model, the Rubidium-Strontium isochron, the Pb-Pb isochron, and many more. (Here we need to recognize that the Carbon-14 dating method is not relevant to the dating of anything more that a few thousand years of age.)

• These methods are based on the fact that certain naturally occurring elements exhibit a radioactive decay process. What happens is that certain families of elements are inherently unstable and when they give off subatomic (alpha or beta) particles they change, or transmute into other elements. An example is found in Uranium-238 which decays in 14 steps until it finally becomes the stable element Lead-206. The time period over which half the parent element (U-238) transmutes into the daughter element (Lead) is known as the half-life and in this case it is 4.5 billion years. Now if we assume the uniformitarian principle, (that is the idea that the slow and gradual processes observed in the present can account for the origin of things in the unobserved past) then we might claim to be able to date the bedrock of the earth. However, we now know, such assumptions are often found to be contradictory and even false. For instance we might assume that a certain rock sample began its life with 100% of a parent element and then measure the percentage of daughter element and from this calculate the apparent “age” of the sample. Here we assumed that the rate of decay was constant, at the beginning the percentage of the parent element was 100%, and the percentage of the daughter element was zero. Further, we have assumed that there was no means by which either the parent or daughter elements were added or removed. But none of these assumptions can be confirmed by direct observation in the past and all of them can be questioned on the basis of what is actually observed in laboratory experiments.

• Now we are told in the public media that the Grand Canyon sedimentary rock strata have been dated by radiometric methods in such a way that agrees with the standard evolutionary interpretation of the geologic column. However, on closer examination we find that the results are often contradictory and can be used to support anything that is desired. For example, in an important research project sponsored by the Institute for Creation Research Dr. Steve Austin found that the Basaltic rocks of the Uinkaret Plateau can be dated anywhere from 10,000 years to 2.6 billion years depending on the radiometric method selected. Similarly, the volcanic rock of Mt. St. Helens has been dated by the Potassium-argon method and found be anywhere from 350,000 years to 2.8 million years old, but in this case we know from direct observation that it is no more that twenty years old.

• What we need to realize is that there are some other naturally occurring elements that have half-lives that are much shorter than those most popular with the evolutionist. For instance, Polonium-210 has a half-life of 138.4 days and Polonium-218 has a half-life of 3-minutes. These radioactive elements create a microscopic “radio-halo” effect such as seen in the diagram. Now if the bedrock granites of the earth were formed billions of years ago out of molten materials then there should no evidence of the radioactive decay of these special elements. What we need to realize is that the radio-halo evidence seen in the diagram can be found in the foundational granites all over the earth and that this best supports the idea of an instantaneous creation of the bedrock of the entire planet. Thus for evolutionist, this constitutes what has been called “Creation’s Tiny Mystery.” (Sources: [Creation’s tiny Mystery, by Dr. Robert Gentry (Oak Ridge Natl. Labs)][Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Steve A. Austin][Radio-dating in rubble:
  The lava dome at Mount St Helens debunks dating myths, Keith Swenson, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_radio_dating_rubble.asp])

• Finally, there is a new creationist model for the origin of the universe, based on Einstein’s General theory of Relativity. It predicts that time is dilated at the boundary of an expanding universe such as that which the Bible seems to describe in many passages (See: Starlight and Time, Dr. Russel Humphreys). For example:

Genesis 1:7,8: So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

Jeremiah 10:12: But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding. (Also see Job 9:8; Ps 104:2; 144:5; Isa 40:22; 42:5; 48:13; Zec 12:1; etc.)

The primary difference between this theory and the Big Bang theory is that one does not assume an "unbounded universe" without a center (an unreasonable, and unproveable assumption). When one assumes that the universe is "bounded" (a reasonable, though unproven assumption) then Einstein’s general theory of relativity yields a significantly different result. The result is that time is dilated at the expanding boundary and thus the age of the universe at the outer edge may be billions of years old while the age of the earth itself is only thousands of years old. (See Starlight and Time, D. Russel Humphreys, (Master Books: Colorado Springs, 1994)).

Summary: In the history of science, never have so many claimed so much, based on so little in the way of observation. Many "cosmological models," have come and gone, each with proponents claiming the wisdom to make vast predictions about infinite space, time, and matter. It was at such a time as this that God confronted the O.T. patriarch Job with the following questions, "Can you bind the beautiful Pleides? Can you loose the cords of Orion? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear [Leo] with its cubs? Do you know the laws of the heavens [or physics]? Can you set up God's dominion over the earth?" (Job 38:31-33)

=>At that point Job had the wisdom to be quiet and listen to God:

(See: In the beginning..earth)

=>And He says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

END of Lecture

Other Evidence for a Young Universe

1. If the Big Bang were true, then as astronomers look deeper into space they should see galaxies that are progressively in earlier stages of evolution. The fact is that when astronomers look into the deepest reaches of space, they don’t see any “proto-galaxies,” instead they only see “proper galaxies with huge families of stars.” Further, they are all in some stage of degeneration. The Eagle Nebula notwithstanding, is not operating by processes supposed to have operated in the early universe. If it is “creating” stars, it is doing so by degenerative processes, such as the explosion of preexisting stars. (Creation Magazine, June-August, 1999, p.8,9)

2. Not enough Super Novas (See figure 10) <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1841.asp>