Going back to Einstein’s work, we find that “c” not only represents the maximum speed at which all matter, information, and particles can travel in this universe, but also within his Theory of Special Relativity, “c” serves to anchor physical space with time into an interwoven dimensional fabric known as space-time. The nature of space-time allows that it can be bent, warped and stretched, with each alteration dramatically affecting what we see as reality. How are such things accomplished? Through – among other things – gravity.
It is commonly accepted that light moves at an approximate speed of 186,282 miles (299,792 kilometers) per second, and this constancy has played no small role in our understanding of natural physics. In one of the most famous equation in the history of science, E = mc2, Einstein proposed in his Theory of Special Relativity that c is the maximum speed at which all matter and information can travel in this universe, and it is the absolute speed at which all massless particles can move within a vacuum. It is, for all intents and purposes, the constant cosmic speed limit. What we must consider however is whether or not this has always been the case.
Concerning how the Big Bang itself came to shape the features of the universe as we see them today, even researchers within the mainstream realm have begun to admit that the proposed phenomenon is flawed to such a degree as to be essentially useless from a scientific standpoint.
Ultimately, dating the age of creation via observations of space tends to officially come down to a few points, most notably the qualities of distance, speed, and the interplay between them.
As we have seen, essentially every method of dating earthen material – be it geophysical, geochemical, archaeological, etc – is built on intricate assumptions that are absolutely crucial in regard to determining an accurate timeframe for the planet. Raising our eyes skyward however provides other insights. There is a great many evidences from the heavens above which can tell us much about the past, and unfortunately for most young-Earth creationists, such evidences oftentimes signal the death knell for conversations about deep-time, with most counterarguments to stellar dating methods sounding contrived and tenuous at best. Must it be so? Are the evidences against a young creation so great in space that it can immediately stall any true consideration? The answers may surprise you…
Interestingly, even human genetics indicates that the flood account of the Genesis is true. Recall, if you will, that human DNA comes packaged in the form of 23 pairs of chromosomes, half of each pair being provided by one’s mother, the other by the father. That said, it is the 23rd chromosome which determines gender in humans. Females carry a pair represented as XX, while the male 23rd chromosome is designated as XY. As children are conceived, they receive one X chromosome from their mother, yet that contributed by the father can be either his X or Y chromosome. If the father provides an X chromosome, the child will be female, yet if the Y chromosome is provided instead, then the child will be male. Given this direct transfer of the male-specific Y chromosome, all of the sons of that man will share his Y-chromosome, just as the father possessed the Y-chromosome of his father, and so on.
What does all this have to do with the age of the Earth? A great deal it seems, with the facts, evidences, and implications building to a larger truth. Beyond the obvious impact of alternatives to the mainstream model, there exists an underlying current of coincidence that should not be ignored.
In some cases, such artifacts (see the last post, concerning OOPARTs) are not so easily covered. These include architectural marvels that, due to their incredible designs and impressive sizes, should not have been possible by the ancients.
What’s amazing is that such evidences of an alternative history, contrary to that pushed by the mainstream, comes not only in the form of written records and oral traditions, but also, incredibly, in the form of anachronistic anomalies.
Not surprisingly considering what we have already discussed, it seems that mainstream historians, archaeologists, and others tend to have a great propensity for selective trust in their work. Oftentimes they take the histories of ancient cultures for granted, rushing to incorporate those records into the chronologies that are broadly accepted, and thereby using such as an argument against the Biblical record, yet remarkably they will ignore other, often better, accounts if they possess even the slightest bit of material that stands in opposition to the accepted model. Even the work of specific historians tends to be dismantled and reused in a piecemeal fashion.