L'energie nucleaire

For centuries the origin of our universe and science were unrelated. Much of civilization had their own belief as to the creation of our universe. However, starting with Charles Darwin and more recently with organizations such as the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), the beliefs of millions have changed. By filling textbooks with neo-Darwinian theories, ‘science’ has claimed the universe to be billions of years old.[1] One must still question, however, why it is perceived as being so old, when at the same time there are thousands of intelligent scientists who strongly disagree. With a deep examination of the evidence that surrounds us on earth and in the universe, it becomes evident that there are serious problems with evidence that appears to prove an old universe.

Controversy over the age of the earth has been a very divisive topic. People known as “Young-Earth Creationists” believe that the only correct interpretation of the Bible indicated the age of the earth as being only 10,000 years or less, and claim they have supporting scientific evidence. At the same time, there are many others who claim there is plenty of scientific evidence to support the old-age view of our earth, estimating it to be around 4.5 billion years old, and the universe to be around twenty billion years old.[2] Part of the reason for these two distinct ways of interpreting the age our universe is based on personal belief and assumptions made when analyzing the surrounding evidence.[3] For example, to the evolutionist, every fossil found may be considered to be in a transition phase between two species, but to the creationist, no bone is good enough to be transitional, meaning every bone belongs to its own kind, simply adding to the controversy.[4]

To help understand the issue of dating the earth, suppose for a moment that a pirate ship was found resting undisturbed upon the bottom of the ocean floor, and a group of scuba divers wanted to figure out when it sank. The obvious thing to do in this situation would be to find the newest object in the ship. If there were any coins, they would simply find the newest coin and it would give them the approximate year the ship sunk. To find the age of the earth, we are in a similar situation, except there is a big difference. Scientists want to find the oldest thing, not the youngest. The problem is, bones and rocks do not have dates on them; so evolutionists have come up with methods of ‘dating’ different materials. Unfortunately these methods frequently produce very absurd results because they are based unreliable data.

A large amount of evidence presented by both evolutionists and creationists alike involves numerous assumptions that are unknown. One of the most critical places for error is assuming certain values are constant and ignoring the fact that our universe and the earth are going through an ever-changing state of equilibrium.[5] Values like the rate of decay and change become most uncertain[6] under this phenomenon, simply because the initial conditions are completely unknown.[7] Trying to put small measured changes taken only a few decades apart and comparing them in proportion to billions of years can only produce ridiculous results – that is basic mathematics. It should be realized that these values are the very key element to radioactive dating methods, which have been shown to produce erroneous results in hundreds of cases around the world.

For example, consider some of the following questionable results on which the dates were already known as a fact, using the Carbon-14 dating method. In the recent past, a fresh seal skin was dated at 1300 years, a piece of bark was dated at 1168 and 2200 years at the same time, a living mollusk was dated at 2300 years, and the ‘prehistoric’ village of Jarmo in northern Iraq was radioisotopically occupied for 6000 years and archeologically occupied for 500 years.[8]

Even though radioisotope-dating methods often make the earth appear to be billions of years old, many dating methods of equal merit suggest that the same things are only thousands of years old. In all, many scientists have seen over 70 dating methods suggesting that life is of the age anywhere from a two digit value to an eight digit value. Given any preconceived age of a material, a dating method can be found to support it, regardless of its true age.[9]

The misconception of different rates of change and formation is a common stumbling block for those who perceive the earth as being billions of years old. If the earth is old, one would expect things to change and form at very gradual rates, and in reality most geological and biological processes do.[10] Except in recent years, more advanced scientific research has found many natural processes to actually be much faster than expected.[11]

Evolutionists explain the formation of deep canyons, lakes and rivers to be the result of several ice ages that occurred thousands of years ago. On the other hand, creationists give credit to the worldwide flood as described in Genesis. Water is extremely heavy and very powerful and would have been completely capable of quickly carving out huge chasms, redistributing strata and creating mountains.[12] Many evolutionists believe that a flood was not possible because of the lack of enough water to cover the highest mountains. However, the flood would not have had to cover Mt. Everest because it was not there until after the flood, for it was the flood that initiated the continental shifts that created such high mountains.[13] Ironically, NASA scientists believe that there have been “catastrophic floods” on Mars that carved out huge canyons even though no water is present today. Still, they do not believe in a flood that covered the earth even though over 70% of it is covered with water![14]

For years those who believe in an old earth have tried to produce a good explanation as to the rapid formation of the Grand Canyon in the United States. Ideas that the Colorado river may have eroded away at the walls for millions of years seems improbable because there is no decent way of explaining where the product of millions of tons of earth sediment and erosion went. The most appropriate explanation for this is that it was another product of the great flood.[15] Also, there is much evidence to support the existence of a flood that occurred approximately 4000 years ago. The oldest tree, the oldest desert, and the oldest coral reef have all been calculated to be younger than 4000 years old.[16]

One natural process that has recently been proven to occur very fast is the formation of stalactites and stalagmites. Guides of underground caves commonly would point out how these ‘cave decorations’ took millions of years to form from continual dripping of rock sediment onto the surface below, but recently most have become very quiet about the whole subject. A host of articles in journals, magazines, and observations have made many people realize that good-sized stalagmites can form in less than a century. For example, a stalagmite shawl was found in a mining tunnel less than 150 years old, a host of stalactites were found under the Australian War Memorial, and a water wheel in Western Australia froze in solid limestone. Opals and diamonds have also been observed to form at much faster rates than expected, especially under great pressure (such as that of a flood). These observations surely do not point to a world that is millions of years old.[17]

One of the weakest points in defending the young age of the universe is cosmology. The most common question to the creationist being asked: “If the universe is millions of years old, how do you explain the millions of years it takes for the light to travel from distant stars?”[18] Evolutionists will often point this out as apparent evidence of a universe that is millions of years old, but the assumptions made to come to these conclusions are no more valid than those that support a young age, as will be explained.

Over the past couple centuries, creationists have put in a significant amount of effort to find the answer to this question. Among the answers given, some say that when “God said, Let there be light: and there was light”[19], light was extended to earth from the beginning of creation. Others have theorized, drawing conclusions about the speed of light slowing down. While both of these may be valid arguments, the most recent discovery made in 1994 has ‘brought to light’ new ideas about the mechanism of the universe, making the supposed evidence for an old universe irrelevant.[20]

In 1994 Physicist Dr. Russel Humphreys Ph.D., a brilliant mastermind in physics, astronomy and nuclear research, offered the creationist community a new scientifically sound way of interpreting the universe.[21] His theory is supported by using the same principles as the big bang theory, along with Einstein’s theory of General Relativity (GR). The Basic idea behind the theory of General Relativity is that gravity distorts time. This theory has been observed correct numerous times and is known as a scientific fact - clocks on the top of buildings run faster than those below.[22] The best-accredited source to help confirm this observation was done by comparing two identical atomics clocks – one in Boulder Colorado, and the other in the Royal observatory in Greenwich, England. Both clocks are accurate to less than one microsecond per year, yet each year the one in England ticks over five microseconds less than the one in Boulder Colorado![23] The basics of Humphreys’ theory are made by changing one single assumption made in the Big Bang theory. As a result of this assumption, the speed of light is no longer valid evidence of an old universe.[24]

The assumption made by evolutionists to create the ‘Big Bang’ theory was that the universe is a three-dimensional infinite area of empty space (unbounded). All creationists have to do is change this assumption (which is based on no scientific data whatsoever), and assume that the universe does indeed have boundaries, but expands with itself. This does not mean that the universes is in the shape of a cube or sphere, but instead imagine it as being on the surface of a balloon and add another dimension. This means that if an astronaut got in a space ship and traveled at an enormous speed, he would essentially end up back at the same place.[25] In his book, Russel Humphreys explains the following:

“Why have I spent so much time on this belief in an unbounded universe? In such a universe [unbounded], every galaxy is surrounded by an even distribution of other galaxies, and there is no net gravitational force (on a large enough scale). However, if the universe is bounded, then there would be a center of mass and a net gravitational force, and we could begin to consider the time-distorting effects of gravity on a massive scale”[26]

Time distorting effects prove very important to indicate why humans can see stars so far away. If this theory is analyzed with observations, a conclusion can be formulated. The observation is that cosmos are expanding – galaxies are becoming further and further apart. This means that some time in the past, there must have been a white hole (the opposite of a black hole), where all matter and light must have expanded outward. This white hole would have been the net gravitational point of the universe; hence all time is based on that one point. If God created the earth in seven days E.S.T. (Earth standard time), this means that everything, including the galaxies further away, is actually running an extremely faster time scale, because they are further away from the center of gravity. Therefore, seven days on earth could easily be millions of years in another galaxy. (Stephen Hawking explains this in his popular book, A Brief History of Time, p.87). By using GR formulas, it is easily realized that light would have ample time to reach us during only a few years on earth.[27]

In Isaiah 40:22 it says “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.” In scientific terms, this may mean more than simply a simple metaphor.[28] If God knew what he was talking about then, he surely did in Genesis also.[29] Scientific evidence shows that all the necessary geological and biological processes, even the speed of light, all occur fast enough to support the idea of a young universe. The deeper we look into the evidence, we can truly feel encouraged to think of Psalm 19:1 where it is written, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.”[30]

Chardin, Teilhard de. The Appearance of Man. London: William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd., 1965

“Creation.” Answers in Genesis CD-ROM, Windows 95/98/NT/XP, Mac G3. Kentucky: Answers in Genesis Ministries, 2000

Wiebe, Garth D., “Creation v.s. Evolution.” February 1997, Accessed April 9, 2001 <http://www.ultranet.com/~wiebe/e.htm>

Gish, Duane T. Ph.D., Creation Scientists Answer their Critics. California: Institute for Creation Research, 1993

Hotton, Nicholas III. The Evidence of Evolution. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., 1968

Humphreys, Russel Ph.D., “The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Young.” Impact #242, August 1993

Meldau, Fred John. Why we believe in Creation not Evolution. 5^th ed. Colorado: Christian Victory Publishing Company, 1968

Morris, Henry M. “A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography.” Impact #267, November 1995

Snelling, Andrew. “Radioactive ‘dating’ in Conflict,” Creation – ex nihilo, December 1997

Tiscareno, Matthew S., “Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?” Accessed February 16 2002 <http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tisco/yeclaimsbeta.html>

[1] Gish, Duane T. Ph.D., Creation Scientists Answer their Critics. (California: Institute for Creation Research, 1993), p.12-13

[2] Tiscareno, Matthew S., “Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?” Accessed February 16 2002 <http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tisco/yeclaimsbeta.html>

[3] Andrew Snelling “Radioactive ‘dating’ in Conflict,” Creation, December 1997, p. 26

[4] Wiebe, Garth D., “Creation v.s. Evolution.” Transition Forms, February 1997, Accessed April 9, 2001 <http://www.ultranet.com/~wiebe/e.htm>

[5] Tiscareno, “The One-Sided Equation”

[6] Klotz, John W., Studies in Creation. (MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1985), p.204-205

[7] Snelling, p.26

[8] Wiebe, “14. Radioisotope dating methods”

[9] Ibid, “14. Radioisotope dating methods”

[10] Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. (New York: Literary Classics, Inc., 1860), p.115

[11] Wieland, Carl. “Fast fossils” Creation – ex nihilo, September 1997, p.24

[12] “Grand Canyon – Monument to the world-wide Flood” Creation – ex nihilo, September 1997, p.28

[13] Morris, John D., Noah’s Ark and the Lost World. (Hong Kong: Master Books, 1988), p.22

[14] Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution. (Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999), p.107

[15] “Grand Canyon – Monument to the world-wide Flood” Creation – ex nihilo, September 1997, p.28

[16] Ken Holgin, Creation Seminar video part 1

[17] “Caving in to Reality” Creation – ex nihilo, December 1997, p.14

[18] Humphreys, Russell D. Ph.D., Starlight and Time. (Arkansas: Master Books, 1996), p.6

[19] Genesis 1:4, KJV

[20] “How old is the Earth”. Creation. PDF on CD-ROM. (Kentucky: Answers in Genesis Ministries, 2000) p.21

[21] Ibid, p.22

[22] “How old is the Earth”, p.22

[23] Humphreys, Russell D. Ph.D., Starlight and Time. (Arkansas: Master Books, 1996), p.11-12

[24] Ibid, p.28-29

[25] Ibid, p.14-18

[26] Ibid, p.19

[27] “How old is the Earth”, p.22-23

[28] Humphreys, p.22

[29] “Genesis means what it ways” Creation – ex nihilo, November 1994, p.23

[30] Psalm 19:1, KJV

EVIDENCE OF A YOUNG UNIVERSE