A1c. Evidence of a Young Earth
All dating techniques presume that the processes we observe acting today can be extrapolated backwards with uniform rates. These assumptions may be grossly inaccurate, especially when projecting backward for millions of years or more. Dating in the near-term with these assumptions would be less prone to errors. Most Dating Techniques actually indicate that the Earth and this universe is young, not billions of years old. The billions of years theories allow for more postulates and conjecture, which stimulate more scientific papers, because it pushes the proof out beyond any ability to access it. So those theories are all equally valid. This is akin to proof by saying, "God did it and that's good enough for me."
1) Let's first look at the possibility that this universe is infinitely old. If it has been in a steady state forever, then the temperature throughout the universe would have equalized out. The temperature is not uniform throughout this universe, so either the universe is not infinitely old or it is not in a steady state. The way this universe could be infinitely old, ie eternal, is if it were an oscillating universe. Energy expands and matter attracts. Hydrogen, the smallest element, appears in a cloud of matter and immediately starts to contract. As more matter is attracted to the center its gravity increases and that attraction increases. The process continues until the gravity is strong enough to ignite a fusion reaction in the core. Hydrogen is fused into the next higher element, helium. Energy is released and it expands out into the universe, because energy "repels". Its intensity diminishes by the inverse square of the distance from the source. What happens next? I suggest that this energy continues to expand until it finally "condenses" into matter again, and lo and behold, hydrogen clouds form in the middle of nowhere.
Why not? Does this fit the E = mc2 law, where the ratio of E/m = a constant?
Apparently the ratio of energy to matter is related to the speed of light.
Could this mean that when you accelerate matter fast enough, that it becomes
energy and vice versa? Some food for physicists. Nevertheless if this universe
is eternal, then a mechanism such as this would need to be involved.
As such, I suggest that there is no need to ever go in one direction to an
infinitely dense point source. Rather, the eternal universe could be expanding
and contracting well within the limits of a point source to an infinite volume,
regardless of how old it is. This agrees with my feelings that the universe
could never be infinitely large.
2) Moon dust is another issue. If the moon were billions of years old it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from constant meteoric bombardment and cosmic dust, as estimated from recent measurements of this influx. NASA was concerned that the astronauts would sink in this layer, because of old universe predictions. Instead on a few centimeters of dust were found. Cosmic dust also falls to the Earth, so we can measure that rate. But, our dynamic surface and weathering preclude any accumulation here.
3) Tidal friction from the Moon gradually slows the Earth's rotation rate. The moon has to recede from the earth as this happens. The distance to the moon has increased according to measurements made as early as 1754. The distance to the moon today is way too small to fit the billion-year-old math.
4) If the earth were originally molten, it would have cooled to its present condition in far less than 4.6 billion years. Scientists cannot believe that heat generated by radioactive decay inside the earth can in any way compensate for this cooling.
5) Planets are round. Why? Because as they spin over time their gravity flattens out the high spots and their spinning distributes the surface material into a spherical shape. Mountains slump, just like a lump of tar does, only it takes longer. On Earth new mountains have formed recently, but what about the other planets in our solar system. The moon and other planets like Mercury and Venus show numerous impact craters, but many of them still have steep walls. On Venus the temperature is hot enough to melt lead, yet we don't see much evidence of slumping. This tends to support the theory that these craters are younger than tens of thousands of years.
6) The moon's hot interior has not yet cooled. How many years should that take?
Dr Walter Brown has compiled a more comprehensive list of observations that support a young earth in his book, "In the Beginning", 7th edition. This book is available on CD and can be downloaded by chapter for free at this website, “www.creationscience.com”.
5 September 2001
For a response to any questions about this material, please email any comments to nasamike@nasamike.com