9 Earth: Young Or Old? Give Me Facts, Not Assumptions
When faced with a lack of evidence to support their faith system, the evolution of molecules to man, the evolutionist will always fall back on the argument of “time.” “Give us enough time,” they say, “and evolution will occur.” And so the evolutionists publish dates of billions of years for the age of the universe. These “billions and billions of years” are emphasized from our childhood days. As little children, we hear famous people and “credentialed” science writers in white lab coats over and over again and again refer to these long ages of time. News broadcasters and public television nature programs refer to billions of years as a matter of fact. Repetition is essential to brainwashing; brainwashing is essential to belief in dead-chemicals-to-one-living-cell-to-man evolution, since there is no factual science (science not based on assumptions) to back it up. Macroevolution cannot be proven to be true since no one was there but the Creator to witness The Beginning. Hence, both evolution and creation are faith systems.
Most creationists would say that the universe is somewhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years old. (The Bible shows the universe to be about 6,000 years old via the biblical genealogical tables). A young universe is not a problem for creationists because our God, the Creator-God of the Bible, is also the Creator of time. He does not need long ages of time. He can and did create people, plants and animals fully mature, but only seconds old.
What if someone was able to take a piece of one of Adam’s bones on the sixth day of the creation week (the day Adam was created) and to send it to a C14 dating lab? How old would the lab claim Adam’s bone to be? Probably thousands of years old, even though it was only one day old, because they would not find any C14 in the bone. Of course, on the sixth day of the creation week, Adam would not have had time to eat plants containing C14 and the C14 then would not have been transported to his bones. So, a very old, but very false date would be obtained for Adam’s age. (With the water canopy in place before the Flood, almost no C14 would have been formed in that atmosphere anyway. So, on the day of Adam’s death, 930 years later, the C14 lab would most probably still publish Adam’s bones to be thousands of years old since they would, even at the end of his life, again find little or no C14.)
This brings up another problem with C14. Dr. Willard Libby, the discoverer and inventor of the C14 method for dating organic material, noticed a problem. If the earth were older than 30,000 years, C14 and C12 would be in a steady state of equilibrium with each other. The problem is that they are not yet in that steady state of equilibrium! As a matter of fact, there is more than a 25% discrepancy between C14 and C12. This can mean only one thing. THE EARTH AND ITS ATMOSPHERE ARE LESS THAN 30,000 YEARS OLD!
Using C14 to date anything older than about 4,500 years (The Flood of Noah’s day when the protective water canopy collapsed was about 4,500 years ago) may very well produce a totally false age determination. There are published reports of detectable amounts of C14 in coal deposits. This coal must then be only a few thousand years old and not 10 to 20 million years old! [See ICR and AIG web pages.]
Since accurately obtaining very old ages utilizing C14 is biblically impossible, then what can we say about the dating techniques commonly used to date rocks with ages determined to be millions and even billions of years old?
The evolutionists make major assumptions during the course of determining a date of several million or billion years for the age of a piece of rock. If any of their assumptions are invalid, then it is impossible to use that technique to find a correct age for the rock.
Here is how these dating techniques work: Let us say we find a rock and then want to determine how old it is. We decide to analyze the rock by looking for certain elements or compounds which break down over time into certain other elements or compounds. We might look for a special isotope of uranium and the element it eventually breaks down (decays) into, which is lead. In our rock specimen, we find some of this special uranium and some of the lead it decays into (the “daughter” element).
The lead is called the daughter element because it comes from the breakdown of its mother element, uranium. We can measure how much lead is in the rock, and because we think we know how fast (or slowly) the uranium would decay into the lead, the amount of lead in the rock should then tell us how old the rock is. In other words, the amount of lead present in the rock would have resulted from a certain amount of uranium decaying over a certain number of years into lead. For all of this to yield a specific time frame in millions or billions of years, certain assumptions are made.
Assumption One: No Daughter Component
First, it is assumed by the rock-dating expert that the system must have initially contained none of its daughter component. In order to accurately calculate the age of a rock specimen, there can be no lead (daughter) in the original rock. It takes 4.5 billion years for half the amount of uranium to decay into a certain amount of lead. We analyze a rock and discover it has that certain amount of lead in it. The article we publish would state, with full conviction, “This rock was 4.5 billion years old as scientifically dated using high-tech procedures by Dr. Credentials who has a double Ph.D. in rock dating.” Who will doubt how old the rock is? Almost no one. But hold on for a minute. Suppose God created that rock with some of the lead (daughter) already in it. How can the expert differentiate between the lead that God put there originally and the lead that came from uranium decay?
Science tells us there is absolutely no difference in the physical and chemical properties between the lead in the specimen that has been lead since the beginning and the lead that came through the decay process. So, no one can know how much lead was there to begin with. Consequently, for laboratory “accuracy” the evolutionist must arbitrarily decide, “There was no lead (daughter element) there to begin with; I can’t prove it, but I will assume (pretend) this to be true.”
It is mathematically impossible to have two variables in one equation and to be able to solve the equation. One variable in every rock dating equation that is unknown is the initial amount of the daughter element and the second unknown variable is the age of the specimen. Yet claims are constantly made that one can determine the age of the rock in spite of the two unknowns.
An example of this could be a burning candle. If you walk into a room and find a candle burning, you can measure the rate at which it is burning. Assuming that it has been burning at that constant rate the entire time, can you determine 1) how tall that candle was when it was lit and 2) how long it has been burning? The answer to this is an emphatic no! There are two unknowns in a single equation.
Every time you are told that a rock is several million or billion or even tens of thousands of years old, the scientist doing the dating has assumed no daughter element initially existed. This means he guesses every time. Do we take scientists’ guesses as valid fact and then proceed to the belief that the Bible must be wrong when it talks of 24-hour creation days about 6,000 years ago? Surely not!
Assumption Two: No Contamination
The second assumption of the scientist dating the rock is that his specimen of rock had never been contaminated. Nothing could have come into or out of the rock that could alter the dating analysis to give an erroneous date. This would demand an “Isolated System” for the rock’s environment. As Dr. Henry Morris says in Scientific Creationism,120 there is no such thing in nature as an isolated system. The closed system is an ideal concept convenient for analysis, but non-existent in the real world. Morris mentions that the idea of a system remaining isolated for millions of years becomes an absurdity.
One reaction that even more seriously alters the dating data is the radioactive radon gas that is one of the intermediates of the thirteen-step decay process of uranium becoming lead. Radon gas is an inert element that does not chemically react with any other element and therefore stays in a gaseous state. A radioactive element that is a gas and has a half-life of several years would have bubbled away from the rock specimen that is being analyzed. Extremely high temperatures and varying pressures, which are predicted in the old earth model, would also affect the bubbling away to various degrees. The result of this gain and/or loss of daughter and intermediate elements (such as radon gas bubbling away) would seriously affect the ability to accurately date the rock.
Some evolutionists claim that every molecule in the universe has been in at least four different substances since the Big Bang. But evolutionists cannot have both; they cannot have molecules jumping around from one substance to another and molecules steadfast and immovable, as they would have to be in the isolated system in order to make their dating techniques work.
Therefore, the second assumption needed to affix old dates to rocks is not valid. Rocks do get contaminated as things seep into them, and rocks change their constituents as things leech out and bubble out of them. An isolated system sounds good and must be assumed to have accuracy in dating rocks, but it does not occur in nature.
Assumption Three: Constant Decay Rate
The third assumption listed by Dr. Henry Morris (Scientific Creationism, p. 138) is that, “The process rate must have always been the same.” Remember our candle analogy from assumption #1? What if there was an additional complication? What if the candle was not burning at a constant rate? What if a breeze had blown across it for a few minutes right after it was first lit which made it burn faster? That would make the equation contain three unknown variables. If it is impossible to solve an equation with two unknowns, it will not help a whole lot to add a third unknown!
If the process rate (the speed at which the mother element breaks down into the daughter element) has ever changed since the rock was formed, then the change of rate of decay would have to be known for the age calculation to be accurate. Scientists now know that process rates can be altered by various factors. Decay rates can be speeded up or slowed down in certain substances when subjected to various types of radiation, heat and pressure. As Dr. Morris states, every process in nature operates at a rate that is influenced by a number of different factors (p. 139).
Let’s also look at this the other way around: if there were no changes in the decay rate, then the third of the three dating assumptions listed above might be correct even though the other two would of themselves destroy the accuracy of the dating technique.
“Educated Guesses” For Dating Rocks?
Dr. Morris says that educated guesses are made to determine apparent ages. But the apparent age may be completely unrelated to the true age of the rock. Guesses must be made when rocks are dated at millions of years if it has been only 6,000 years since every rock in the universe was created! If 6,000 years old is the oldest possible age of any rock in the universe, then how do the rock-dating experts arrive at millions or billions of years? Dr. Richard Mauger, Ph.D. in Geology, puts it this way:
In general, dates in the “correct ball park” are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are the discrepancies fully explained.121
“Assumptions determine conclusions,” so if the assumptions are not valid, then the conclusions (as in the age of rocks) will be wrong. If the primary assumption is that the universe is billions of years old, then the dating techniques will be calibrated to render vast old ages when rocks are dated. The “correct ball park” will be billions of years, even when the rocks cannot be older than 6,000 years.
The Three Assumptions
These three assumptions: (l) no original daughter element, (2) a closed system, and (3) the same decay rate throughout all time—are always involved when a scientist dates a rock. None of these assumptions are valid, and none are able to be subjected to the scientific method of observation and reproducible experimentation. There is no way to accurately date anything beyond several thousand years. That means the earth could be quite young and no scientist can absolutely prove otherwise!
...there is certainly no real proof that the vast evolutionary time scale is valid at all.
That being true, there is no compelling reason why we should not seriously consider once again the possibilities in the relatively short time scale of the creation model.
As a matter of fact, the creation model does not, in its basic form, require a short time scale. It merely assumes a period of special creation sometime in the past, without necessarily stating when that was. On the other hand, the evolution model does require a long time scale. The creation model is thus free to consider the evidence on its own merits, whereas the evolution model is forced to reject all evidence that favors a short time scale.
Although the creation model is not necessarily linked to a short time scale, as the evolution model is to a long scale, it is true that it does fit more naturally in a short chronology. Assuming the Creator had a purpose in His creation, and that purpose centered primarily in man, it does seem more appropriate that He would not waste aeons of time in essentially meaningless caretaking of an incomplete stage or stages of His intended creative work.122
The truth is that we have been taught a lie from our earliest school days.123 We are taught to believe that the earth is very old even though there is no factual science (see Chapter 2 “assumptions”) to support eons of time. But we are not taught the bountiful evidences that lead to the conclusion that the earth is quite possibly only a few thousand years old. Textbook writers hold back and do not print the evidences for a young universe because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).
How many evidences for a young earth can you list right now? Did you try to think of some? Can you write down even one solid proof that the earth is young? Most people (including Christians) cannot think of even one proof of a young age for the earth. You see! We have been led into one of the lies of Satan’s world system—that the universe is very old.124
If a group of Christians were asked, “Do you believe God created the heavens and the earth?” Every hand would go up attesting to their sure belief, “Yes, God created the heavens and the earth.” Should a second question be proposed, “Do you believe God used billions of years of geologic ages and the process of evolution to create?” Some pauses and waffling would occur, and if everyone were being honest, many hands would go up. Now, a third question is in order, “Do you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them in a literal six 24-hour day week about 6,000 years ago?” In one evangelical church in Dallas, Texas, only five hands went up in a class of fifty people. You say, “They must not have understood the question!” No, they understood, but only five believed what the Bible says in Genesis 1-11, Exodus 20, John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, Revelation 4:11, etc. They had been brainwashed by Satan’s world system into thinking there is plenty of scientific evidence to prove an old, old universe.
Even in our conservative, evangelical churches there is little or no teaching regarding the creation issue. Let’s face it, we have been more influenced by the worldly culture around us than we have penetrated culture with biblical Truth. We have become “conformed to this world” rather than being “transformed by the renewing” of our minds (Romans 12:2).
Dr. John C. Whitcomb has done us all a great service with his book, The Early Earth: Revised Edition. Dr. Whitcomb lists and discusses many of the evidences for believing the Bible to be true as written. He contrasts faith in God and His Word to faith in evolution and an old earth:
...the non-Christian scientist must acknowledge that he also comes to the factual, observable phenomenon with a set of basic assumptions and presuppositions that reflect a profound “faithcommitment.” No scientist in the world today was present when the earth came into existence, nor do any of us have the privilege of watching worlds being created today! Therefore, the testimony of an honest evolutionist could be expressed in terms of...Hebrews 11:3..., as follows: “By faith, I, an evolutionist, understand that the worlds were not framed by the word of any god, so that what is seen has indeed been made out of previously existing and less complex visible things, by purely natural processes, through billions of years.” Thus it is not a matter of the facts of science versus the faith of Christians! The fundamental issue, in the matter of ultimate origins, is whether one puts his trust in the written Word of the personal and living God who was there when it all happened, or else puts his trust in the ability of the human intellect, unaided by divine revelation to extrapolate presently observed processes of nature in the eternal past (and future). Which faith is the most reasonable, fruitful and satisfying? In my own case, while studying historical geology and paleontology at Princeton University, I was totally committed to evolutionary perspectives. Since then, however, I have discovered the biblical concept of ultimate origins to be far more satisfying in every respect.
Christians, who truly desire to honor God in their thinking, must not come to the first Chapter of Genesis with preconceived ideas of what could or could not have happened (in terms of current and changing concepts of uniformitarian scientism). We are not God’s counselors; He is ours! ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?’ (Romans 11:34) ‘...For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts’ (Isa. 55:8-9).125
Do we know what we believe as Christians? Are we ready always to give an answer to every man who asks us to give an account of the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15)? As my wife and I travel around the USA, we are increasingly alarmed at the accelerating rate of departure from belief in a young earth and global Flood among the leadership of the church. Often, church leaders do not seem to realize the importance of Genesis 1-11 and the creation events as the foundation of our New Testament doctrine. Theistic evolution and progressive creationism have penetrated the church and almost no one in leadership has sounded the alarm. How can you have Christ the Lord as the last Adam if there was never a first Adam who began life in a sinless state and then fell (1 Corinthians 15:45)? How can there be a doctrine of sin with death as its penalty if there were all kinds of creatures dying as they eventually evolved into Adam? Why do we wear clothes (Genesis 3:21)? Where do we get the idea of one man, one woman as husband and wife for life (Genesis 2:21-25)? Why do we have human government (Genesis 9:1-7)? You see, the end result of not believing in a literal Genesis is murder, divorce, nudity, anarchy, etc., etc. Why do we see such horrible crime today? As Alexander Solzenitzen said, “We have forgotten God.” How does a country forget God? It begins by drifting away from a literal belief in the early, foundational chapters of Genesis (Jeremiah 2:32, 3:21; Ezekiel 23:35; Hosea 13:6, 4:6b)!
As a Christian leader, it is a good idea once in a while to review Scriptures such as Isaiah 9:16; Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6; Micah 3:5. The gospel begins with the Creator. The Creator reveals Himself to His creation in full power in early Genesis. Later, this same literal Genesis Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1; Colossians 1; Hebrews 1), entered His creation to die and be resurrected for the salvation of the fallen race of the first Adam! The span of time from Genesis chapter 1 until Jesus was about 4,000 years. Add 2,000 more years to get us up to the present, and the lifetime of planet earth is right at 6,000 years. There is absolutely no way to squeeze millions of years out of (or into) the Biblical text!!!
Is Earth 6 Thousand Or 4.5 Billion Years Old?
How divergent are these two views (creation and a young earth versus evolution and an old earth)? Many evolutionists (and some creationists, such as Hugh Ross)126 put the beginning of earth at about 4.5 billion years ago. The Bible places The Beginning at about 6,000 years ago. Dennis Peterson attempts to help us understand the degree of difference in these two choices of faith:
One way to visualize the extremes of our choices is to equate one year to the thinness of one page from a typical Bible. If you were to stack up several Bibles to a height about equal with your knee, you’d have about 6,000 pages before you.
Now how many Bibles would you have to stack up to make four and a half billion pages?
The stack would reach at least a hundred and fourteen miles high into the stratosphere.
So, you’re standing there between your two stacks, and you are supposed to choose which one to believe in. Why is it you are made to feel rather sheepish to admit that you lean toward the Biblical stack of about 6,000 years? Or why is it that you start to arrogantly ridicule anyone who would dare to not agree with your proud billions?127
Petersen lists 35 or 40 evidences for a young earth. These are scientific reasons to believe the universe to be quite young— on the order of several thousand rather than several billion years. Petersen states:
Scientists are aware of over 70 methods that can give us ideas of Earth’s age. We could call these “GEOLOGIC CLOCKS.” All of them are based on the obvious reality that natural processes occurring steadily through time produce cumulative and often measurable results. Most of these “clocks” give a relatively young age for the Earth. Only a few of them yield a conclusion of billions of years. Those few are loudly publicized to support the commonly held theory of gradualism.128
The Poynting-Robertson Effect
The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust of certain kinds toward them (and certain particles are driven away, also). This is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. Our sun is estimated to suck in about 100,000 tons of cosmic dust every day. An old sun should have “pulled in” and destroyed a significant number of particles in our solar system. Yet, our solar system is full of these particles! The Poynting-Robertson effect would seem to suggest a sun and solar system of less then 10,000 years of age.129 Petersen states:
All stars have a gravitational field and pull in particles like gas, dust and meteors within their range. Stars radiating energy 100,000 times faster than our sun have a spiraling effect, pulling things in all the faster. The unusual thing is that O and B stars are observed to have huge dust clouds surrounding them. If they were very old at all, every particle in close range would have been pulled in by now.130
Two types of stars, O and B, have huge dust clouds and, hence, must be quite young. No one has ever seen the birth of a new star, although some scientists have postulated through computer simulations and theoretical mathematics that as many as three new stars should form every year. No scientist ever has, nor ever will see a star form because the Creator created all of His stars on the fourth day of the creation week (Genesis 1:14-19).
In the spring of 1992, some scientists claimed to be observing a star form out in the stellar heavens. They used various mathematical equations to come to their conclusion. However, if their conclusion is in direct contradiction to what the Bible says, then their conclusion is wrong. Again, in 1995, the claim was made that the Hubble Space Telescope had found an immense, six trillion mile long, gaseous cloud that was a star incubator. The NASA picture displayed finger-like projections with stars in front, behind and imbedded in the cloud. Do stars in and around a cloud, in far outer space, prove that the cloud is making the stars? I don’t think so.
So, we sit back and wait a few months or years and finally some scientist will sheepishly admit, “We are sorry folks, all our meticulously produced, computer enhanced evidence led us to believe a new star was forming, but we now realize that we made a mistake. We will keep looking for a new star to form and we will let you know as soon as we find it.” God created His last star out of nothing on the fourth day of the creation week!
Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things [“stars,” NASB] that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth [“not one of them is missing,” NASB] (Isaiah 40:26).
According to Isaiah, God made all the stars and has a name for each one. Astronomers may see stars die since sin entered the universe, but no star-birth is possible; God completed His creation of the universe and rested on the seventh day.
Light From The Farthest Stars
You might be thinking, “Okay, but what about the speed of light and the millions of years necessary to get light from the farthest stars to our solar system?” (This is one of the things I was thinking as I was “evolving” into a creationist back in the early seventies.) Well, first of all, how do we know it takes millions of years for light to travel to earth from the farthest stars? Some evolutionary professor told us, or some writer told us, or someone like Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather or Carl Sagan told us. There does seem to be a problem here, doesn’t there?
Many scientists, evolutionists and creationists, are studying Russell Humphrys’ ideas in his book, Starlight and Time.131 To catch up on the recent developments in the time it takes starlight to reach planet earth from the farthest stars, Humphrys’ book is a must. Perhaps it is “time” that varies. Humphrys discusses the effects of gravity on time. Even here on earth the atomic clock at Greenwich keeps time at a different rate than the atomic clock at the higher elevation at Boulder, Colorado. In outer space where the effects of gravity are much weaker than here on earth, the speed of light might remain constant, but time would be stretched out. With this effect, maybe one day on earth would be the same as one billion years in outer space! These ideas are out of my league, so I have to take other Christian creationists’ endorsements of Humphrys’ work.
What if you were to discover that light from the farthest star could arrive at earth instantly? God created the stars and at the same time the light beams from the stars to the earth. We can’t eliminate this possibility. Our God could do this if He wanted to. He created a light beam and it didn’t even have a material light source (the sun) behind it for the first three days of His creation week!
Look what finite man has done by God’s grace: large files are transferred from computer to computer or computer to other devices (printer, palm pilots, etc) by infrared communication (without cables) in an incredibly short time. If finite man can do this, it should not be difficult to imagine what our infinite God can do. He created the vast stellar universe and the light shining between all the things it contains, instantly.
Having said the above, even today, the distance to these remote stars has not been calculated. The methods used to measure great distances in space are closely examined in conjunction with the basic assumptions of Trigonometry. The actual distances in space may very well be as great as we have been told or they may not. The size of our universe surely appears to be vast, but we are here questioning the validity of the measuring techniques.
Measurements in space are arrived at by three commonly accepted techniques. The most reliable way to find out how far away an object is in space is to get into your spacecraft and fly to it, measuring the distance as you go.
A second way would be to shoot a laser beam and bounce it off of the surface of the object (a planet or the moon or an asteroid). The time it takes the light to go to the object and to come back tells you the distance. Most stars are too far away to use this method.
The third method is called “parallaxing.” In this method, the extreme ends of earth’s orbit can be used to triangulate. Most stars are so far away that it becomes impossible to make useful measurements of the angles to determine the apex of the triangle: the two sides of the triangle are almost parallel to each other. And the triangle gets to be too “skinny” as the apex ends up in the deep outer space. We cannot get into a space ship and travel to the stars to measure the distance, the laser beam technique has its limits and the triangulation method is only good for a distance of a few light years.
Anything beyond these three methods (and other methods, if any), is theoretical and a postulation. One such postulation is Doppler shift. This has not been reliable because the red shift and the blue shift of some stars have not been the absolute indication of their distances or directions of motion. Some astronomers now say that the red shift is not due to the Doppler effect at all. The supposed expansion of the universe is now believed to be an expansion of time and space. The space between galaxies is said to be increasing.
Another consideration is that light may have taken a “shortcut” through space. Different types of mathematics and different assumptions and postulates give totally different concepts of space and distances in space. What we know about space is quite limited. How distances through space are calculated depends on the calculator’s system of math and his or her basic set of postulates (assumptions).
Outer space may be straight or it may be curved. If you like to think outer space is a straight line, you will use Euclidean Geometry and its accompanying assumptions. Euclidean Geometry is used to find vast distances in space. Its calculations are, for the most part, straight-line calculations. But, what if outer space is not able to be measured with straight-line from here-to-there-type math? That would mean all the farthest stars could be much closer than the textbooks teach.
There is still another alternative. Another legitimate way to measure distances in outer space is by using Riemannian math. Riemannian math is classified as Non-Euclidean Geometry. It assumes outer space to be curved. Hence Non-Euclidean Geometry produces much smaller distances to the farthest stars. Niessen (ICR Impact #121) reviewed articles by Harold Slusher (“Age of the Cosmos,” I.C.R. 1980) and Wayne Zage (“The Geometry of Binocular Visual Space,” Mathematics Magazine 53, Nov. 1980, pp. 289-293). Twenty-seven binary star systems were observed, and it appears that light travels in curved paths in deep space. If you convert Euclidean straight-line math into Riemannian curved math, light could travel from the farthest stars to earth in, as reported by Niessen, 15.71 years! This is a whole lot less than millions of years, isn’t it?
Is Riemannian Geometry valid if it shows shorter distances to the stars? H.S.M. Coxeter published a largely ignored book in 1942 entitled Non-Euclidean Geometry. Coxeter stated, “...we still can’t decide whether the real world is approximately Euclidean or approximately non-Euclidean.”132 The scientists do not know which is the valid way to measure space as it really is! They are not sure just what outer space really looks like. They have not been there and do not know what shape it has. Everything close enough to our solar system to obtain measurements (though all these contain assumptions) appears to have positive curvature. That means Riemann’s method of figuring distance in space is more likely to be correct than the Euclidean methods. Niessen, then, has a chance of being correct when he postulates 15.71 years for light from the farthest star to reach planet earth. And if the speed of light has not been constant since the Beginning, this might also get light to earth much more quickly. Scientists recently increased the speed of light to 300 times its normal speed by passing it through a Caesium chamber.
Let us not forget what Jeremiah, the prophet of God, said:
He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion (Jeremiah 10:12).
Perhaps God made the stars closer to earth with their light already here and then he moved the stars away by “stretching out” the heavens. So instead of the star being made after the Big Bang way out in space, and us having to wait for millions of years for its light to get here, God made it closer to earth with its light already here and then moved the star away to its place out in space. I believe Humphrys asserts that the “stretching out” of the heaven could have taken place on the fourth day.
If world class physicist, Paul Davies, is correct in his article in Nature [Davies, P.C.W., and Lineweaver, C.H., “Black Holes Constrain Varying Constants,” Nature 418 (6896): 602-603, August 8, 2002] that contends that the speed of light has quite possibly been slowing down, then, if the speed of light has not been constant, the universe may be quite young! Millions of years of age for stars, and the idea that these stars are millions of miles away is calculated under the assumption that the speed of light has always been the same. The most recent research indicates that time and the speed of light are NOT CONSTANTS!
What conclusion can we arrive at on the basis of all the above? You do not have to believe it when some textbook or scientist in a white lab coat tells you that stars are millions of light-years and perhaps trillions of miles away. There is no hard, irrefutable evidence here for a 9 to 20 billion year old universe. Those stars could very well be billions of light years away. Our Lord has shown us by creating Adam, Eve, trees, animals, etc., fully mature that he can create a star with a fully mature light beam that comes to earth no matter how far away that star might be. Perhaps the time to get here is speeded up in outer space, and the speed of light is faster in days gone by!
Where do the 9 to 20 billion years come from? Hubble came up with the theoretical, mathematical formula for measuring time back to the initial “Big Bang.” His calculations originally estimated about 18 to 20 billion years as the age of the universe. Then, a few years ago, some other scientists decided Hubble had made a grievous mistake and was 50% off in his calculations. Thus, the age of the universe was cut in half (from 18 to 20 billion years to 9 to 10 billion years) by the stroke of a pen. Some scientists still hold to the 20 billion year figure. They realize that even 20 billion years is statistically not long enough to evolve the universe and all the diversity it contains.
Combustion Energy Of Stars
Now, back to some more evidences for a young universe. Astronomers calculate that certain types of stars may have surface temperatures of 90,000ºF. This is “... more than 100,000 times the energy coming from our sun. Burning down at that rate, and clocking backward, the entire universe would have been filled with the mass of these stars just a few thousand years ago!”133
Some evolutionists will object, “But you can’t take current processes and extrapolate back like that.” Well, what do evolutionists do to find and publish their old, old dates? The same thing! They evaluate, for example, present processes such as decay rates (½ life), speed of light etc. and extrapolate backwards assuming all was the same from the beginning (2 Peter, Chapter 3, explains to us that all is NOT the same from the Beginning—that there was one kind of heaven/earth system before the Flood and another kind of heaven/earth after the Flood).
Bristle-Cone Pine Trees
If the Biblical Flood occurred about 4,500 years ago and destroyed all dry-land plant life, then we would not expect to find plants that could be accurately dated at older than about 4,500 years. The bristle-cone pine tree is such a plant. It has been called the oldest living organism on earth and has been dated at about 5,000 years. Peterson states, “It’s almost as though all these trees were planted on a virgin Earth just 5,000 years ago.”134
Just because a tree has 5,000 rings it does not necessarily mean that the tree is 5,000 years old. For the last three years, at our home in Texas, our trees have had two rings each year. We had a wet spring and then no rain for two and a half months. The trees went initially dormant, and then, with the autumn rains, the Bradford Pear trees came out of dormancy and began to bloom again. This gave them two sets of rings in one year. Bristle-cone pines are very old, but less than 5,000 years!
Rivers Are Young
Every year the Mississippi River carries tons and tons of eroded dirt into the Gulf of Mexico. Scientists have been measuring the growth of the Mississippi delta for many years.
At the present rate the entire Mississippi River delta would have accumulated in only 5,000 years. But science acknowledges that the river has been even bigger in the past.
How could this be? Unless of course the North American continent, and all the other continents for that matter, just haven’t been in their present positions any longer than that.135
Another river that scientists carefully watch is the Niagara. It also leads to belief in a young earth.
Because the rim of the falls is wearing back at a known rate every year, geologists recognize that is has only taken about 5,000 years to erode from its original precipice.136
Some measurements have indicated 25,000 years of erosion at pre-hydroelectric rates, while others mention a buried canyon that would require another 10,000 years. All of these figures assume a constant amount of water and a steady rate of erosion. But, after observing the catastrophe of Mount St Helens, we know that the initial run off of the Flood slurry waters could carve a deep canyon in a matter of hours or days. Often large chunks of the dirt and rock under waterfalls, like the Niagara, will break off, yielding even younger ages. Suppose that 200 years from now you decided to calculate the age of Niagara Falls, but you did not know that in 2002 a huge section of rock had broken away from the edge of the falls. You would assume that it took thousands of years to wear away all that rock from the falls’ edge, but it happened in an instant. You would date the falls much older than it actually was. This type of mistake is common when scientists attempt to date things.
The Receding Moon
Adding to the evidence for a young earth is our receding moon. Scientists know how fast our moon is moving away from earth (about two inches per year).
Louis B. Slichter, Professor of Geophysics at M.I.T., writes:
The time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem.137
Dennis Petersen continues:
...working it back would mean the moon and Earth would be touching only two billion years ago. Of course, that’s ridiculous. Another way to look at it is this: At the present rate and starting from a realistic distance of separation between the two, if the Earth is five billion years old the moon should be out of sight by now!138
New ideas are constantly being presented about the origin of our moon, such as our moon arose because of a collision between planet earth and a planetesimal. As creationists, we need to be aware of new ideas, but always subject them to the Bible. The Bible says:
And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also (Genesis 1:16).
God says he made the moon on the same day he made the sun, the fourth day of the creation week. He doesn’t tell us that he made the moon by means of some collision with a planetesimal like the latest theories claim.
When the first moon rocks were dated in the early 1970’s, NASA published the age of the moon rocks at 4 to 4.5 billion years. Several years and many rocks later, they published a range of dates for the rocks of our moon at 3 to 4.5 billion years. This author called one of the geologists who dated those rocks and the conversation went something like this:
“I noticed in a recent news release that the dates of the moon rocks have been adjusted to a range of 1.5 billion years. That’s a pretty big difference in the dates! Was the range any greater than that?”
“Oh yes, the range went from several thousand years to over 20 billion years.”
“Well then, why did NASA only publish the 1.5 billion year range, instead of the full 20+ billion year range?”
“We did not want to confuse the public. We know the moon is about 3 to 4.5 billion years old, so we called the dates outside of that range discordant dates and threw them out.”
“Assumptions determine conclusions” and some scientists must have pre-decided (assumed) that the moon is about 3 to 4.5 billion years old before any rocks were ever brought back from the moon. What if, in spite of their presuppositional belief, the several thousand year dates were correct and not discordant? Well, that locks in Special Creation and eliminates the possibility of evolution that requires millions of years. Apparently that was unacceptable to NASA thirty years ago.
Or, what if the 20+ billion years dates were correct? That, in effect, demolishes Hubble’s math, and the time of the Big Bang is once again up for grabs. These scientists might object and say, “But we use a bell-shaped curve to arrive at our dates.” Well, what if the assumptions, which are built into their dating system, skew the curve one way or another? We’ve already seen that the three major assumptions invariably included when scientists date rocks are not valid.
You might ask an astronomer where our moon and its rocks came from. Some fanciful answers will be forthcoming! Evolutionary scientists do not know from whence cometh our moon. A creationist believes that the God of the Bible created the moon, and the sun and stars as well, on the fourth day of the creation week (Genesis 1:14-19). There is no hard, factual, scientific information that can refute a young age for the moon. All old ages given for the moon are not accurate because the assumptions behind the dating techniques are not realistic.
From time to time, comets pass by the earth. Not only can scientists not tell us where our moon came from, they also cannot tell us about the origin of short-term comets. These are comets that astronomers calculate have lifetimes of no more than 100,000 years. If the universe is somewhere between 9 and 20 billion years old, and the astral bodies were formed as the result of the “Big Bang,” evolution is left in the embarrassing dilemma of having to postulate theories for the origin of short-term comets, which it cannot prove. You have to admire the imagination of these folks, though. Some actually believe that Jupiter spits comets out of high volcanoes. The only problem is that the short-lived comets are not made of the right stuff to even come from Jupiter, and their orbit is in no way oriented to enable them to refer to Jupiter as “mother.” Scott Huse says:
Comets journey around the sun and are assumed to be the same age as the solar system. Each time a comet orbits the sun, a small part of its mass is ‘boiled off.’ Careful studies indicate that the effect of this dissolution process on short-term comets would have totally dissipated them in about 10,000 years. Based on the fact that there are still numerous comets orbiting the sun with no source of new comets known to exist, we can deduce that our solar system cannot be much older than 10,000 years. To date, no satisfactory explanation has been given to discredit this evidence for a youthful solar system.139
One idea for these young comets is that there is something called an “Oort cloud” out beyond Pluto’s orbit that generates comets (not yet seen). Another guess is that as stars pass by they “kick” comets into our solar system. I choose to stick with the Bible. God made the contents of the heavens on the fourth day about 6,000 years ago!
Earth’s Magnetic Field
An examination of the Earth’s magnetic field suggests that Earth cannot be very old, since the Earth’s magnetic field is losing its strength. Dr. Thomas Barnes has done volumes of work on the depletion of Earth’s magnetic field. The conclusion of his work establishes the age of the Earth at less than 10,000 years.140 Naturally, the evolutionary community has proclaimed Barnes’ work invalid, but Barnes answers their charges quite simply and effectively in the ICR Impact #122, August 1983, entitled “Earth’s Magnetic Age: The Achilles Heel of Evolution.” The earth’s magnetic field is getting measurably weaker. Ten thousand years ago it would have been too strong to support life. If life could not have existed 10,000 years ago because of the super strength of the earth’s magnetic field, then evolution had no time to occur.
Some objections have arisen about Barnes’ work. Geologic processes seem to indicate earth’s magnetic field may have reversed rapidly many times in the past. Dr. John Baumgardner has suggested that during the cataclysmic tectonic movements of earth during the Flood, earth’s magnetism was unstable.141
It seems to me that we must believe magnetism to be stable (allowing for slow entropy) since shortly after the Flood. If earth’s magnetic pole is constantly moving around and gaining and losing strength, there arises a huge problem. How does the Pacific Golden Plover navigate from Alaska to Hawaii over 4,000 miles of ocean water with no landmarks? How does the Humpback whale find its way from the Arctic to the equatorial seas? Magnetite has been found in the Humpback and many researchers have reached a consensus that these and many other migratory creatures utilize earth’s magnetism as their guidance system. If earth’s magnetism were fickle, then we would have many migratory animals completely lost! But if earth’s magnetism were unstable during The Flood (or some point prior to The Flood), it would certainly interfere with an evolutionary view that these animals gradually established their migratory routes.
As Dr. Russell Humphreys states: “...the earth’s magnetic field certainly is less than 100,000 years old; very likely less than 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the face-value biblical age of 6,000 years” (See www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm).
Our Shrinking Sun
Recently, a controversy has arisen over the shrinking of our sun. If the figures of John Eddy and Adam Boornazian are correct (“Analysis of Historical Data Suggest the Sun is Shrinking,” Physics Today, Vol. 32 No. 9, September 1979), our sun would have been too hot for life to exist on Earth even 1,000,000 years ago. This would, in effect, knock out the possibility of the vast expanses of time required for evolution. Evolutionists and theistic evolutionists have jumped on this one to prove Eddy was mistaken. Others now claim that the measurements of the sun (measured when the planet Mercury crosses in front of the sun each year) prove the size of the sun has not changed. We will have to wait to see how this develops.142
In any event, there is a growing body of evidence that our sun is quite young! According to ICR Impact #276 (www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-276.htm), evidences for a young sun include: The fundamental oscillation of the sun matches the model for a young sun, the solar neutrino emission is that of a young sun and the lithium and beryllium abundance in the sun is consistent with that of a young sun. This evidence in no way surprises a young earth creationist, since we know that the Creator God of the Bible created the sun, moon and stars with their useful and necessary relationships to planet earth about 6,000 years ago. For more about the sun and gravitational collapse as opposed to thermonuclear reactions, read p. 58-61 in Dr. Theodore Rybka’s book, Geophysical and Astronomical Clocks.143 In the back, he has some tables listing maximum possible ages for things such as: dispersion of meteor showers—10,000 years; rings of Saturn—114,000 years; dust in interplanetary space—10,000,000 years; bridges between quasars—7000 years; fast burn rate of hot stars—100,000 years; etc. He lists many more evidences that require a universe much younger than billions of years!
Support for a young earth is offered by Robert V. Gentry through his studies of radiohalos (little halos that surround a speck of radioactive material) in coalified wood.
Evolutionists believe the coal deposits in the Colorado Plateau to be hundreds of millions of years old. Yet, Gentry’s radio-halo “clock” suggests a time period of only a few thousand years.144 Gentry discovered microscopic bits of uranium in these coal deposits. The effect of the radioactive uranium on the coal was to produce radiation halos in the coal.
Paul Ackerman comments on Gentry’s radiohalo work:
As a radioactive bit decays, radiation extends in all directions into surrounding coal for a small, yet precise distance determined by the particle energy of the radiation. Over time this emitted radiation will change the color of the coal, forming a distinct sphere around the bit of uranium in the center. These tiny spheres of discolored rock surrounding a microscopic radioactive center are termed “radiohalos.” Such radiohalos are Robert Gentry’s specialty.145
How does the bit of radioactive uranium get into the coal to form the halos? Ackerman continues:
Regarding the radioactive center, a bit of uranium has, at some time in the past, before the wood material was hardened into coal, migrated into its present position. As the uranium bit undergoes radioactive decay, a form of lead is created. Once the coal has hardened and the uranium bit has been cemented into a fixed position, this lead isotope begins to accumulate at the site....
Gentry has found that the uranium/lead ratios in the Colorado Plateau coal formation indicate that this formation is only a few thousand years old.146
The halos form around the radioactive particles in the coal and indicate a young age of only a few thousand years for the coal. The coal of the Colorado Plateau was probably formed during the Flood judgment of Noah’s day as God was destroying heaven-and-earth system #1. One type of Polonium has a short half-life of three minutes. Another type is measured in nanoseconds. For these bits of material to inscribe themselves in rock and coal with their characteristic “tattoos” something had to be happening with flash speed!
Gentry also found halos of Polonium in Precambrian granite rock. These are supposedly the oldest rocks on earth. Precambrian rock is called the “basement” rock of earth since it is thought to be more ancient than all other rock. Ackerman continues to review Gentry’s work:
The question Gentry has raised for evolutionists is how the polonium bits and their resulting halos came to be in the basement granites....
The enigma is this: If the granite is hardened, the polonium cannot travel to its intrusion location. But if the granite is not hardened, no halo can form. Therefore, Gentry argues that the time lapse from a permeable, molten state to the present rock state for these precambrian granites had to be extremely brief. How brief? One of the polonium isotopes studies by Gentry has a half-life of three minutes! Another has a half-life of only 164 microseconds!
In the evolutionary model, the time required for the cooling and solidification of these granites is millions and millions of years. Gentry believes these halos to constitute powerful evidence against evolution and its presumed vast time spans. He believes these halos speak of a very rapid formation of these crustal rocks.147
Radiohalos in Precambrian basement rock may indicate a young age for the earth’s “oldest” rocks [for more read: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, see footnote #123]. Walter T. Brown, Jr., (In The Beginning), lists about thirty time clocks for the age of the earth that yield an age of a few thousand years. He mentions that an analysis of the gases (such as helium) in the atmosphere yields a young age (few thousand years) for the age of the atmosphere.148 Helium gas is found in deep, hot rocks. If these rocks were even one billion years old the helium would have escaped, but it is still retained in the rock. This means that the rock can be only a few thousand years old.149
River sediments and erosion rates indicate that the earth could not have existed as it is for millions of years.150 [See also: Dr. Henry Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible (Grand Rapids: World Publishing, 1995), Appendix 5.]
A study of the rings around several planets seems to demand a young age for our solar system:
The rings that are orbiting Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter and Neptune are being rapidly bombarded by meteoroids. Saturn’s rings, for example, should be pulverized and dispersed in about 10,000 years. Since this has not happened, planetary rings are probably quite young...
Jupiter and Saturn each radiate more than twice the energy they receive from the sun. Venus also radiates too much energy. Calculations show it is very unlikely that this energy comes from nuclear fusion, radioactive decay, gravitational contraction or phase changes within those planets. The only other conceivable explanation is that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off.151
The existence of star clusters hints at a young universe. Immense clusters of stars are traveling through space, we are told, at supersonic speeds. Scientists believe that gravity holds these fast moving star clusters together. But scientists do not know how these star clusters could hold together for millions of years, while traveling at such high speeds. They should have “unclustered” and moved apart by now, especially with the effects of entropy. But they are still in a cluster. The sole answer to this dilemma for the evolutionist appears to be special creation a few thousand years ago, not a “Big Bang” billions of years ago.
Mount St. Helens
When all other evidence fails to prove a very old heaven-and-earth system, evolutionists go back to rocks and rock formations, which supposedly require very long spans of time to form. The eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980, and the rapid formation of geologic systems around it, is challenging the claims of historical geology. Dr. Steve Austin and Institute for Creation Research staff personnel have been documenting the phenomena of Mount St. Helens since its initial eruption. Some surprising results of the volcanic blast are being observed.
Up to 600 feet thickness of strata have formed since 1980 at Mount St. Helens. These deposits accumulated from primary air blast, landslide, waves on the lake, pyroclastic flows, mud flows, air fall and stream water... Mount St. Helens teaches us that the stratified layers commonly characterizing geological formations can form very rapidly by flow processes.152
In other words, what geologists may have thought took thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to form as a column of rock, in fact, formed at Mount St. Helens (as the scientists watched) in less than eleven years! Perhaps eons of time are not necessary to form the layers of rock after all.
One more fascinating phenomenon of the Mount St. Helens cataclysmic explosion is the apparent formation of the beginnings of polystrate fossils in five years. In 1985, scientists discovered that water-soaked trees were floating with root end down (toward the bottom of the lake) in Spirit Lake. These trees:
...are randomly spaced not clumped together, over the bottom of the lake, again having the appearance of being an in situ forest [a forest that grew there, Ed.].
Scuba investigation of the upright deposited trunks shows that some are already solidly buried by sedimentation, with more than three feet of sediment around their bases. This proved that the upright trees were deposited at different times, with their roots buried at different levels. If found buried in the stratigraphic record (rocks), these trees might be interpreted as multiple forests which grew on different levels over periods of thousands of years. The Spirit Lake upright deposited stumps, therefore, have considerable implications for interpreting “petrified forests” in the stratigraphic record.153
What does this all mean? There is a bank of polystrata fossils (one tree goes up through several layers or strata of sedimentary rock) in Nova Scotia over 2,000 feet thick with trees straight up and down at different levels up through the rocks. Geologists have claimed that a formation like the Nova Scotia formation would take hundreds of thousands of years to form. After observing the Spirit Lake water-soaked trees, scientists are reconsidering. Perhaps it does not take as long as they originally thought to form polystrate fossils. Those trees in Spirit Lake are lining up and getting buried in what should become sedimentary rock—but just a few years have gone by, not hundreds of thousands of years!
The Spirit Lake trees seem to be showing a fossil forest in production. An example of an existing fossil forest (similar to Spirit lake) is in Yellowstone National Park and is a popular tourist attraction. Based on observations of the Spirit lake upright trees, the Yellowstone fossil forest may be only a few thousand years old, not millions of years old as taught by the Park Service.
On August 18, 1986, U.S. News and World Report stated: “Last year in the Gulf of California, MIT’s Edmond found that the action of hot vents was turning dead plankton in the sediment into petroleum—a process that normally takes at least 10 million years squeezed into an instant.” Obviously, it does not require millions of years to form oil if oil has been proven to form in an instant. Could it be that the earth is not as old as we have been told?
With so many observable evidences for a young earth, which can only be answered by an earth that once was greenhouse warm and suddenly (about the time of the Flood) became permanently frozen at the poles, why do evolutionists still cling to their old earth/local flood theories? Only one answer seems plausible: they do not want to submit themselves in humble obedience to their Creator. They refuse to accept the Lord Jesus Christ even though He reveals Himself through His creation. Evolution from one cell to man is a lie and a foolish speculation of men in rebellion against their Creator.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divine Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [Romans 1:18-22 (Emphasis added)].
He hath made the earth by his power,
He hath established the world by his wisdom,
And hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion
120 Dr. Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism (San Diego: Creation-Life Pubs., 1974), Chapter VI.
121 Mauger, Richard Ph.D., “K-Ar Ages of Biotites from Tuffs in Eocene Rocks of the Green River, Washakie and Uinta Basins of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado,” Contributions to Geology, vol. 15(1), 1977, p. 37, University of Wyoming.
122 Dr. Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, p. 136.
123 122 An in-depth study of the lies and consequences of evolution is Ken Ham’s book, The Lie: Evolution (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1987).
124 For the most up to date information about the age of the earth from a creationist’s position, read Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling and Eugene F. Chaffin (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), 2000.
125 Dr. John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth: Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 52.
126 Hugh Ross wrote a book in 1994 entitled, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. This book was published by the Navigator’s publishing arm, NavPress, and supports a billions-of-years old universe. Ross believes that people who teach a young earth perspective are keeping educated scientists from coming to faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior. With this position, Ross denies the sovereignty of Almighty God who will not lose one of His elect. Oddly, The Presbyterian Layman (Sept./Oct., 1994) agrees with Ross and states in the words of Alexander Metherell, M.D., Ph.D. (an elder in St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, Calif.), “Unfortunately, young earth creationists are resisting...with all their strength, fearful that the old earth view opens the door to evolution. In the process, they are placing in the way of educated unbelievers a stumbling block that keeps some from accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.” For an excellent critique of Hugh Ross’ book which clearly displays misinterpretations of scientific theory and his errors in the exegesis of the Hebrew text, please read: Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book of Hugh Ross, written by Mark Van Bebber and Paul Taylor [Eden Productions, 2628 West Birchwood Circle, Mesa, Arizona 85202. Phone: (800) 332-2261 or (602) 894-1300. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org].
127 Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, Vol. I, p. 34.
128 Ibid., Petersen, p. 35.
129 For more about the Poynting Robertson phenomenon, see: R.L. Wysong, The Creation- Evolution Controversy (Midland, Mich: Inquiry Press, 1981), p. 454ff. Also: Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution (Baker Books, 1983), p. 29.
130 Ibid., Petersen, p. 44.
132 “The full recognition that spherical geometry is itself a kind of non-Euclidean geometry, without parallels, is due to Riemann (1826-1866). He realized that Saccheri’s hypothesis of the obtuse angle becomes valid as soon as Postulates I, II, and V are modified to read:
I. Any two points determine at least one line.
II. A line is unbounded.
V. Any two lines in a plane will meet.
For a line to be unbounded and yet of finite length, it merely has to be re-entrant, like a circle. The great circles on a sphere provide a model for the finite lines on a finite plane, and, when so interpreted, satisfy the modified postulates. But if a line and a plane can each be finite and yet unbounded, why not also an n-dimensional manifold, and in particular the three-dimensional space of the real world? In Riemann’s words of 1854: “The unboundedness of space possesses a greater empirical certainty than any external experience. But its infinite extent by no means follows from this; on the other hand, if we assume independence of bodies from position, and therefore ascribe to space constant curvature, it must necessarily be finite provided this curvature has ever so small a positive value.”
According to the General Theory of Relativity, astronomical space has positive curvature locally (wherever there is matter), but we cannot tell whether the curvature of “empty” space is exactly zero or has a very small positive or negative value. In other words, we still cannot decide whether the real world is approximately Euclidean or approximately non-Euclidean.” H. S. M. Coxeter, Non-Euclidean Geometry, 5th ed. (Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1965), pp. 11,12.
133 Petersen, p. 44.
134 Ibid., p. 38.
135 Ibid., p. 38.
136 Ibid., p. 39.
137 Louis B. Slichter, “Secular Effects of Tidal Friction upon the Earth’s Rotation,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 8 No. 14 (1964), 4281-4288.
138 Petersen, p. 43.
139 Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, pp. 28, 29.
140 For more see: “Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field,” T.G. Barnes, I.C.R. Technical Monograph No. 4, 1973; also ICR Impact #100, October 1981.
141 For further reading you might begin with J. R. Baumgardner, “The Imperative of Non-Stationary Natural Law in Relation to Noah’s Flood,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 27:3(1990) 98-100.
142 Science Held Hostage is a book by three men from Calvin College who appear to be theistic evolutionists. They do not believe in a young earth. The “evolution/creation in six days” controversy is not an issue to cause the elect to lose fellowship with each other [Howard J. Van Till, Davis A. Young and Clarence Menninga, Science Held Hostage (Downers Grove, Ill: Inter Varsity Press, 1988)].
143 Dr. Theodore Rybka in his book, Geophysical and Astronomical Clocks (Irvine, CA: American Writing and Publishing Co., 1993), refutes the arguments of Hugh Ross and Van Till, Young and Menninga by showing that the sun’s heat is generated by gravitational collapse and not nuclear fusion.
144 Robert V. Gentry, et al., “Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification,” Science, 194 (October 15, 1976), 315-317.
145 Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All: Exciting Evidences for Recent Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), pp. 104, 105.
146 Ibid., Ackerman, P. 105.
147 Ibid., Ackerman, pp. 108-110.
148 Brown, In the Beginning, p. 16.
149 See: R. V. Gentry, “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons” Geophysical Research Letters 9 (October 1982) pp. 1129-1130.
150 Brown, p. 16.
151 Brown, p. 18.
152 Steven A. Austin, Ph.D., “Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism,” ICR Impact #157, July 1986, p. 1, 2. Dr. Austin also has an excellent video on this topic.
153 Austin, ICR Impact #157, p. iii.