In the end, we come to ultimate question: Does the cosmological evidence impact the young creation model? One could rightly argue both sides of the matter, declaring that the distances involved and the speed at which light travels must indicate an ancient advent, or alternatively, one could declare that distances need not matter if the physics hypothesized could have been at play then, and perhaps even now in some cases. There is ample room for both arguments to some degree, yet ultimately it comes back to distance and the size of the universe. That said, we are surely dealing with distances, and perhaps even ages, that the human mind cannot ever hope to truly comprehend, yet to ascribe to them any real and certain value is a somewhat dangerous prospect.
Can we honestly know the depth of space, the span of that gulf between us and there? I doubt it.
I would venture to say that, despite our many technological advancements and all too common self-aggrandizement, we are only slightly better prepared to claim accuracy in our measurements than some native in a far-off land, stopping periodically amidst frantic campfire-lit dances to view the flickering gods high above. Make of that what you will. For me, it all shall remain a fabulous mystery, a wonder to consider on a dark night, staring up at the beauty of it all…
That said, of course, while we cannot empirically know the full extent of the age of the universe at its furthest span, there are a wealth of other intriguing facts that vastly limit the age of our local solar system, and perhaps even some regions beyond.
Consider our moon. As current measurements indicate, the moon is receding from Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches per year. According to the mainstream model, the moon, like Earth, was born some 4.5 billion years ago. Problematically, if the moon, situated some 238,000 miles from Earth presently, has been receding at its current rate (which is quite an acceptable assumption within the uniformitarian view so preferred by the mainstream), then only a few million years ago the surfaces of the two bodies would have been touching! No grand exposition is needed to illustrate the catastrophic conditions such an event would incite, and even in spite of touching, just having the moon much closer would dramatically raise tides, increasing erosion rates and inundating life on the planet rapidly. The moon’s very makeup also testifies of a younger advent, as it possesses large quantities of uranium-236 and thorium-230, both known for exhibiting rapid decay rates. Shouldn’t they have disappeared by now if in fact the moon is 4.5 billion years old?
Looking further out into the solar system, we find extensive quantities of space dust, and this fact too testifies to a younger age, for had it been in existence for very long, then a force known as the poynting-robertson effect would have displaced it further out into the inky blackness of the void, away from our local region. Saturn, the second largest planet among us, too exhibits a youthful age in its beautiful rings of ice and trace minerals. The issue here is that these rings are exceedingly fragile, and should have, given the extensive age of that planet too, been disrupted by natural processes and chance disturbances over the years.
At the core of our solar system lies the source of our heat and light, the ruler of the day, the sun. Interestingly, the power source for the sun, a natural fusion generator at its heart which converts hydrogen into helium, should not still be as it is. As any star burns through its hydrogen fuel, the chemical makeup of its core changes, increasing the temperature of the stellar body, and our sun should be no exception. That being said, if the sun is truly as old as it is claimed to be, then it must have been cooler in the past. In fact, by 3.5 billion years ago, our planet as a whole would have been far below freezing, yet no evidence for such a planetary freeze is forthcoming, and this fact, termed the Faint Sun Paradox, is known to the mainstream. 1
Beyond our local system, we find evidence for a recent advent in other cosmic locales too. For instance, many galaxies exhibit a characteristic spin, the stars within rotating around the core at different speeds, faster for the inner stars, slower for those towards the edge. A problem arises when we gauge the impact of those disparate rotation speeds, for the measurable speeds at which galactic material swirls, even in our own Milky Way for instance, would limit its age to only a few hundred million years at best. Anything beyond that timeframe would irreversibly muddle the delicate spiraled shape of the galaxy into a flat, formless accretion disk of stars and other material. 2 This fact, known as “the Winding-Up Dilemma,” of course stands in complete opposition to the mainstream stance that the Milky Way, our galaxy, is at least ten billion years old.
Likewise, again within the observable galactic realms above, we find evidence for a young creation in the absence of supernovas. Supernovas are the incredibly violent explosions of certain stars, their deaths leaving tangible and immense scars of light and debris within the heavens for a time, and through our observations we have noted their occurrences as coming as often as one ever quarter-century. Though certain features of these explosions may dissipate rapidly, other features, such as the gas and debris expelled by them, will persist visibly for a million years or so. That in mind, our observations have only noted some 200 or so gaseous remains of such explosions; a sum corresponding to only seven-thousand years or so of supernova activity. 3 All things considered, the concordance of this figure with other such temporal markers is intriguing to say the least…
Ultimately, we are clearly faced with a choice: believe the claims of the mainstream, accepting their cosmological models and theorems, buying into their concepts wholesale because they are imbued with the power and authority of the height of man’s knowledge, or take the opportunity to consider the evidence provided by the other side, weighing the actual value of the oft-concealed alternative instead of outright dismissing it. It would do us all well to hear the arguments from both points of view before aligning ourselves to one paradigm or the other.
Is the universe beyond our terrestrial realm ancient or fresh? The data is clear in that there is enough evidence to support a range of interpretations regarding the outer reaches of that place, yet locally, within our solar system and even our galaxy and others, we find other evidences that remarkably suggest a young creation. Most intriguing of all, ages and aeons aside, we find that everything about this universe appears to be made just-so for life here, near the center of it all, on a special planet unlike any other, rich with the conditions necessary for life to thrive. It was no accident, I’m certain. We were put here for a purpose, and we are the reason for all of this, each of us. We are the special creation of an almighty Creator, and the Bible itself, the very Word of God, declares this.
– This was an excerpt from “Remnants of Eden: Evolution, Deep-Time, & the Antediluvian World.” Get your copy here today. God bless! –
- Dr. Faulkner, Danny, “#4 Faint Sun Paradox, 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth,” Answers in Genesis, October 1, 2012, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/sun/4-faint-sun-paradox/, retrieved September 25th, 2015
- Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H.,”Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter,” Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-413
- Davies, K.,”Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175-184
FOUNDRY4 is a proud member of the International Association for Creation