We have examined what the three most significant fields involved with the study of history have to say about the past, analyzing their methods and conclusions, and ultimately discovering a patchwork tapestry of ancient ages and young ones, and between both weaves a series of chronological loopholes which inherently clouds the clarity of the whole. What are we to make of it all? Despite the myriad ages proposed across the spectrum, from those of the mainstream on to those who appreciate the authority of the Biblical record, there is in fact indicators that unequivocally declare the age of this Creation is far more youthful than not.
In the year 1650, the scholar James Ussher published a magnificent tome in which he methodically examined all of the major events in Earth’s history, from the creation up until the year AD 70. Incredibly, Ussher concluded in this book, The Annals of the World, that the creation, as noted in Genesis, occurred in the year 4004 BC. In fact, Ussher, not content to stop at simply providing the year, went so far as to declare that the creation took place on October 23rd of that year!
The second pillar of evidence for the Gap Theory, they contend, comes in its apparent congruency with mainstream science. They insist on maintaining their view, at least in part, because they feel it sufficiently reconciles the Scriptures with the secularly-interpreted evidence of deep-time and primitive fossil organisms.
Concerning the Gap Theory, the general premise agrees with a literal rendering of Genesis, whereby all was created over the course of six day. The difference however comes with the inclusion of an indeterminable amount of time between the first and second verse of Genesis.
Contrary to the all mainstream notions of the past, of random naturalistic acts bringing about the advent of this reality and all that exists within its material bounds, the Bible provides a much different account. As Genesis records, the Creator established this entire reality over the course of six days in several distinct acts of creation, beginning with the establishment of the universe and the fundamental forces that govern it, continuing on through with the creation of Earth and its environmental features, the advent of vegetative life, the formation of the heavenly bodies, and the birth of animal life across the world, in the seas and the air and on land. His final creative act was the advent of man and woman. That being said, for those who put their faith in the Genesis account, there are several common ways of interpreting it. Personally, however I believe there is only a single, proper way to understand it.
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.
Termed ‘the anthropic principle,” there is in fact a great deal of precision-tuned details which further emphasize the fact that this entire reality is the direct handiwork of an intelligence. Astonishingly, our existence, in many ways even the very existence of this universe, rides along a knife-edge of incredible detail and requisite stability that simply cannot be ascribed to statistical probability.
Interestingly, the white hole cosmology model also addresses redshifted galaxies in an intriguing way also. If you will recall, the analysis of redshifted galaxies and other such bodies are used by researchers to establish universal distances, and as with the vast distances that starlight must travel, oftentimes serves as a basis for arguments against a young creation. Even so, the method is not without doubt, with some such analyses concluding that the universe is only eight billion years old as opposed to the more commonly accepted 14 billion year age.
The most exotic feature of this model comes with its unparalleled ability to dilate time. While the general process near the hydrological superstructure at the core would have taken only days to accomplish, far away, at the edge of space as it was stretched forward, perhaps as many as billions of years passed!
There is a body of research which sidesteps the Big Bang, supposing a completely separate form of universal origin. Working within the parameters of Einstein’s general relativity, this cosmological model envisions a bounded, finite universe approximately 50 times smaller in size than its current diameter. Initially, the universe would have consisted of only two components: empty space and pure water. With all the fundamental forces of nature in place and functional at the moment of inception, the water in this primal universe would have existed as a massive hydrological superstructure of normal temperature and density at least two light years in diameter! That body of water contained all the material that would come to exist in the universe.