Astronomical and Physical Sciences

The Universe, the Solar System, the Earth, and Life Were Recently Created

Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate

43. Strange Planets

Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved.a One theory says that planets formed when a star, passing near our Sun, tore matter from the Sun. More popular theories hold that the solar system formed from a cloud of swirling gas, dust, or larger particles. If the planets and their known moons' evolved from the same material, they should have many similarities. After several decades of planetary exploration, this expectation is now recognized as false.b [See Figure 22.] According to these evolutionary theories:

Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus,c and Pluto rotate backwards.d [See "Is Pluto a Planet?" on page 26.]

Backward Orbits. Each of the almost 200 known moons in the solar system should orbit its planet in the same direction, but more than 30 have backward orbits.e Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

Tipped Orbits

Moons. The orbit of each of these moons should lie very near the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the Earths moon, are in highly inclined orbits f

Planets. The orbital planes of the planets should lie in the equatorial plane of the Sun - instead, the

Figure 23: Saturn and Six of Its Moons. Saturn has 60 known moons. One of them, named Phoebe, has an orbit almost perpendicular to Saturn's equator. This is difficult for evolutionist astronomers to explain.

orbital planes of the planets typically deviate from the Suns equatorial plane by 7 degrees, a significant amount.

Angular Momentum. The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun.g

44. Earth: The Water Planet

The amount of water on Earth greatly exceeds that known on or within any other planet in the solar system. Liquid

Is Pluto a Planet?

In 2006, after years of internal debate, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted to no longer call Pluto a planet. Instead, they said Pluto is a transneptunian object. [See Endnote 43h on page 81.] The IAU had no jurisdiction to change the definition of "planet" for the rest of the world. It is fine for an organization to tell others what it considers a word to mean, but common usage is the basis for definitions. Our language is filled with scientific words whose meanings have changed based on new discoveries and broader understandings. Few meanings have changed based on an organizations vote.

Since Pluto's discovery 76 years earlier, Pluto has been a thorn in the side of astronomers trying to explain how planets evolve. So many characteristics of Pluto are difficult to fit into evolutionary scenarios. No longer calling Pluto a planet (even though it is spherical, has three known moons, and orbits the Sun in the right direction) may reduce those man-made problems, but now calls attention to the more difficult question of how a thousand transneptunian objects evolved.

In 1930, after astronomers had been searching for a suspected ninth planet for 25 years, a tenacious farm boy from Kansas, Clyde W. Tombaugh (1906-1997), discovered Pluto. He later became one of my favorite professors. Going to his backyard to use his handmade 9-inch telescope was memorable. Professor Tombaugh was a warm, unpretentious man with the biggest smile you have ever seen. However, in class, he sometimes became irate at astronomers who made pronouncements but seldom touched a telescope.

Classification can be a useful tool, but at other times it leads to endless arguments, because the world (or, in this case, the solar system) is usually more complicated than theories imply. We can call Pluto anything we wish, but tens of thousands of books and hundreds of millions of students have called Pluto a planet.

What is a planet? Its original meaning was "wandering star." T will always associate Pluto with Clyde Tombaugh and the worldwide excitement of finally discovering the ninth planet. For historical reasons, if nothing else, I suspect that millions of others will continue to call Pluto a planet as well as a transneptunian object.

Semantics aside, the scientific question remains: how could Pluto evolve?

water, which is essential for life to survive, has unique and amazing properties; it covers 70% of Earths surface. Where did all Earth's water come from?

If the Earth and solar system evolved from a swirling cloud of dust and gas, almost no water would reside near Earth's present orbit. Any water (liquid or ice) that close to the Sun would vaporize and be blown by solar wind to the outer reaches of the solar system,a as we see happening with water vapor in the tails of comets.

Did comets or meteorites deliver Earth's water? Although comets contain considerable water,b they could not have brought much water to Earth, because comets contain too much heavy hydrogen, relatively rare in Earth's oceans. Comets also contain too much argon. If comets were the source of only 1% of Earth's water, then, using evolutionists' assumptions, our atmosphere would contain 400 times more argon than it does.c The few types of meteorites that contain considerable water also have too much heavy hydrogen.d[Pages 263-313 explain why comets and some types, of meteorites contain so much water and heavy hydrogen. Heavy hydrogen is described on page 271.]

These observations have caused some to conclude that water was transported from the outer solar system to Earth by objects that no longer exist.e If so, many of these "water tankers" should have collided with the other inner planets (Mercury, Venus, and Mars), producing water characteristics similar to those of Earth. In fact, their water characteristics are not like those of Earth.f Instead of imagining "water tankers" that conveniently disappeared, perhaps we should ask if the Earth was created with its water already present.

45. Molten Earth?

For decades, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment. If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over.a Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements such as gold would have sunk to Earth's core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth's surface.b Therefore, the entire Earth was never molten and did not form by meteoritic bombardment.

Radioactive dating of certain zircon minerals also contradicts a molten Earth. Trace elements within those zircons show that the zircons formed on a cold Earth (less than 212°F).c However, based on radioactive dating, those zircons formed on an extremely young Earth, when, according to evolutionists, it should have been molten (exceeding 1,800°F)—an obvious contradiction. Either the molten Earth idea or the radioactive dating method must be wrong; perhaps both are wrong. Meteorites contain much more of the element xenon than Earth's surface rocks, relative to other noble (inert) gases such as helium, neon, and argon. Had Earth formed by Meteoritic bombardment, Earth's surface rocks would have a different composition, and our atmosphere would contain up to ten times more xenon than it has.d If Earth did not evolve by meteoritic bombardment, it may have begun as one large body. [See "Melting the Inner Earth" on pages 430-432.]

46. Evolving Planets?

Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from just the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting the Sun.a Orbiting particles are much more likely to be scattered or expelled by their gravitational attraction than they are to be permanently pulled together. Experiments have shown that colliding particles almost always fragment rather than stick together.b (Similar difficulties exist in trying to form a moon from particles orbiting a planet.)

Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. "Growing a planet" by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling.c

The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionist astronomers to explain for several reasons.d

a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space,
especially the lightest two gases—hydrogen and
helium, which comprise most of the mass of the
giant planets.

b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravita-
tionally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in
the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, about ten or more
times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all
the gas gravitationally. This must happen very
quickly, before the gas dissipates.e (Jupiter's hydrogen
and helium are 300 times more massive than the
entire Earth.)


c. Stars like our Sun—even those which evolutionists
say are young—do not have enough orbiting
hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter.f


Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not have evolved anywhere near their present locations.gThe planets that have been found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve. [See "Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?" on page 352.]

Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.

47. Planetary Rings

Planetary rings have long been associated with claims that planets evolved. Supposedly, after planets formed from a swirling dust cloud, rings remained, as seen around the giant planets: Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune.a-[See Figure 24.] Therefore, some believe that because we see rings, planets must have evolved.b

Actually, rings have nothing to do with a planet's origin. Rings form when material is expelled from a moon by a volcano, a geyser, or the impact of a comet or meteorite.c Debris that escapes a moon because of its weak gravity and a giant planets gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished, they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years.d Because a planets gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moons—as evolutionists assert.

48. Origin of the Moon

Evolutionary theories for the origin of the Moon are highly speculative and completely inadequate.a The Moon could not have spun off from Earth, because its orbital plane is too highly inclined. Nor could it have formed from the same material as Earth, because the relative abundances of its elements are too dissimilar from those of Earth.b The Moons nearly circular orbit is also strong evidence that it was never torn from nor captured by Earth.c If the Moon formed from particles orbiting Earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the Moon's orbit; none are.

Some claim that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor. If so, many small moons should have formed.d The impactor's glancing blow would either be too slight to form our large Moon, or so violent that Earth would end up spinning too fast.e Also, small particles splashed from Earth would have completely melted, allowing any water inside them to escape into the vacuum of space. However, Apollo astronauts found on the Moon tiny glass beads that had erupted as molten material from inside the Moon but had dissolved water inside! The total amount of water that was once inside the moon probably equaled that in the Caribbean Sea.f

These explanations have many other problems. Understanding them caused one expert to joke, "The best explanation [for the Moon] was observational error—the Moon does not exist."g Similar difficulties exist for evolutionary explanations of the other (almost 200) known moons in the solar system.

But the Moon does exist. If it was not pulled or splashed from Earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one hypothesis remains: the Moon was

Figure 24: Planetary Rings. The rings of Saturn, Uranus, and Jupiter (left to right) are forming today and steadily breaking up. Rings are not composed of debris remaining after planets evolved.

created in its present orbit. [See "Evolving Planets?" on page 27, and "Moon Recession" "Moon Dust and Debris" and "Hot Moon" on page 39.]

49. Evolution of the Solar System?

Evolutionists claim that the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4,600,000,000 years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun. Colliding asteroids also would create dust particles that, over millions of years, would spiral in toward the Sun. (To understand why, see "Poynting-Robertson Effect" on page 40.) Particles should still be falling into the Sun's upper atmosphere, burning up, and giving off an easily measured infrared glow. Measurements taken during the solar eclipse of 11 July 1991 showed no such glow.a So, the assumed "millions of years" and this explanation for the solar system's origin are probably wrong.

Disks of gas and dust surround some stars. That does not mean planets are forming in those disks. Some disks formed from matter suddenly expelled from the star.b

Other disks formed from impact debris or other matter near the star. Early astronomer's called the disks planetary nebula, because they mistakenly thought they contained evolving planets.

50. Faint Young Sun

If, as evolutionists teach, the solar system evolved from a spinning cloud of dust and gas 4.5 billion years ago, the slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25-30% less heat during its first 600 million years than it radiates todaya (A drop in the Sun's radiation of only a few percent would freeze all our oceans.) Had this happened anytime in the past, let alone for 600 million years, the ice's mirror-like surfaces would have reflected more of the Sun's radiation into outer space, cooling Earth even more in a permanent, runaway deep-freeze. If it had, all agree that life could not have evolved.

Evolutionists first tried to solve this "faint young Sun" problem by assuming that Earth's atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this, and much opposes it.b Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Suns radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age."c

A second approach assumes that Earth's atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases. Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic.d

A third approach assumes that Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Suns radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth's temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable.

Evolutionists have never explained in any of these approaches how such drastic changes could occur in almost perfect step with the slow increase in the Suns radiation. Until some evidence supports such "special pleadings," it does not appear that the Sun evolved.e

If the Sun, a typical and well-studied star, did not evolve, then why presume that all other stars did?

Mountains of Venus

Figure 25: Maat Mons on Venus. If Venus' mountains were composed of lighter material, they would "float" in the denser rock below, similar to an iceberg floating in denser liquid water. (Mountains on Earth are buoyed up, because they have a density of about   3.3 gm/cm3 and "float" in rock that is about 3.3 gm/cm3.) Data from the Magellan spacecraft that orbited and mapped Venus for several years showed that Venus' mountains are composed of rock that is too dense to "float." So, what supports them? It must be Venus' strong crust—despite Venus' extremely hot atmosphere. This implies Venus is not old and did not evolve.

Venus must have a strong crust to support its high, densea mountains. One mountain, Maat Mons, rises higher than Earth's Mount Everest does above sea level. Because Venus is relatively near the Sun, its atmosphere is 860°F—so hot its surface rocks must be weak or "tarlike." (Lead melts at 622°F and zinc at 787°F.) Only if Venus' subsurface rocks are cold and strong can its mountains defy gravity. This allows us to draw two conclusions, both of which contradict major evolutionary assumptions.

First, evolutionists assume that planets grew (evolved) by the gradual accumulation of rocky debris falling in from outer space, a process called gravitational accretion. Heat generated by a planets worth of impacts would have left the rocky planets molten. However, Venus was never molten. Had it been, its hot atmosphere would have prevented its subsurface rocks from cooling enough to support its mountains. So, Venus did not evolve by gravitational accretion.

Secondly, evolutionists believe that the entire solar system is billions of years old. If Venus were billions of years old, its atmospheric heat would have "soaked" deeply enough into the planet to weaken its subsurface rocks. If so, not only could Venus' crust not support mountains, the hot mountains themselves could not maintain their steep slopes. Venus must be relatively young.

52. Space, Time, and Matter

No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of space, time, or matter. Because each is intimately related to or even defined in terms of the others, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others.a

53. A Beginning

Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here— everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)a

54. First Law of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics tells us that the total energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. In other words, energy (or its mass equivalent) is not now being created or destroyed; it simply changes form. Countless experiments have verified this.

A corollary of the first law is that natural processes cannot create energy. Therefore, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce mass and energy—the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe—then it is even less likely that natural processes can produce the much more complex organic (or living) portion of the universe.

55. Second Law of Thermodynamics

If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning.a

A further consequence of the second law is that soon after the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory.b

56. Big Bang?

The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,a was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.

Redshift. The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a Doppler effect;b that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself supposedly expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.c Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws.

Conservation of energy is violated in another important way. If a big bang happened, distant galaxies should not just be receding from us, they should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating from us. [See "DarkThoughts" on page 31.]

Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with objects having low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and stay connected for long. [See "Connected Galaxies" and "Galaxy Clusters" on page 41.] For example, many quasars have very high red-shifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.d Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.e Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory.f

Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.g Much remains to be learned about redshifts.

CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.h

Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.i Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not produce the CMB.j [See pages 333-335.]

Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium.k Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars)l and the presence of beryllium and boron in "older" stars"m contradicts the big bang theory.

A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and lithium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist only of those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been found.n

Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. [See "Distant Galaxies" on page 329.] A big bang should not produce highly concentrated or rotating bodies.p Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce tightly clustered galaxies.q Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.r

If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge.s (For example, the negatively charged electrons antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.t

If a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape the trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe's mass in a "cosmic egg" that existed before a big bang?u

If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect.y All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.z

Dark Thoughts

For decades, big bang theorists said that the amount of mass in a rapidly expanding universe must be enough to prevent all matter from flying apart-otherwise, matter could not come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universes actual mass always fell far short of that minimum amount. This "missing mass" is often called dark matter, because no one could see it or even detect it. Actually "missing mass" had to be "created" to preserve the big bang theory. [See "Missing Mass" on page 31.] The media's frequent reference to "dark matter" enshrined it in the publics consciousness, much like the supposed "missing link" between apes and man.

The big bang has struck again by devising something new and imaginary to support the theory. Here's why. The big bang theory predicts that the universe's expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from the Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. The shocking result is now in—and the answer has been rechecked in many ways. The universes expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating!v Therefore, to protect the theory, something must again be invented. Some energy source that counteracts gravity must continuously accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. This energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy.

Neither "dark matter" (created to hold the universe together) nor "dark energy" (created to push the universe apart) has been seen or measured.w We are told that "most of the universe is composed of invisible dark matter and dark energy."x Few realize that both mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory.

Rather than cluttering textbooks and the publics imagination with statements about things for which no objective evidence exists, wouldn't it be better to admit that the big bang is faulty? Of course. But big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists. (Pages 333-335 give an explanation for the expansion, or "stretching out," of the universe.)

57. Missing Mass

Imagine seeing several rocks in outer space, moving radially away from Earth. If the rocks were simultaneously blasted away from Earth, their masses, changing velocities, and distances from Earth would have a very precise mathematical relationship with each other. When a similar relationship is checked for billions of observable galaxies, an obvious conclusion is that these galaxies did not explode from a common point in a huge "big bang."a It is even more obvious that if such an explosion occurred, it must have been much, much less than billions of years ago.

Evolutionists try to fix this problem in two ways. They assume that the universe is filled with at least ten times as much matter as can be seen. This is maintained even though three decades of searching for this "missing mass" have turned up nothing other than the conclusion that it does not exist.b

A second "fix attempt" assumes that the rocks (or, in the real problem, all particles in the universe) were briefly, almost magically accelerated away from some point. This process, called inflation, supposedly reached speeds billions of trillions of times faster than the speed of light. An instant later, and for no apparent reason, inflation stopped. All this happened by an unknown, untestable phenomenon—not by a blast. Then this matter became controlled by gravity after it reached just the right speed to give the universe an apparent age (based on one set of assumptions) of about 13.7 billion years.c Such flights of imagination and speculation are common in the field of cosmology.

58. Heavy Elements

Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin of heavy elements. (A big bang would produce only the three lightest elements: hydrogen, helium, and lithium.) The other 100+ elements supposedly formed deep inside stars and during stellar explosions. This theory is hard to verify, because stellar interiors and explosions cannot be carefully analyzed. However, a vast region of gas containing the mass of 300,000,000,000,000 suns has been found that is quite rich in iron and other heavy elements. The number of nearby visible stars is a thousand times too small to account for the heavy elements in that huge region.a Heavy elements are even relativley abundant in nearly empty regions of space that are farthest from stars and galaxies.b


Most hydrogen atoms weigh one atomic mass unit, but some, called heavy hydrogen, weigh two units. If everything in the universe came from a big bang or a swirling gas/cloud, heavy hydrogen should be uniformly mixed with normal hydrogen. It is not.c Comets have twice the concentration of heavy hydrogen as oceans. Oceans have 10-50 times the concentration as the solar system and interstellar matter. [See "Heavy Hydrogen" on page 271.]

59. Interstellar Gas

Detailed analyses have long shown that neither stars nor planets could form from interstellar gas clouds.a To do so, either by first forming dust particlesb or by direct gravitational collapse of the gas,c would require vastly more time than the alleged age of the universe. An obvious alternative is-that stars and planets were created.

60. Fast Binaries

In our galaxy, about 60% of all stars are grouped in closely spaced pairs called binaries. Fortunately, our Sun does not have a binary partner. If it did, temperatures on Earth would vary too much to support life. The mutual gravitational attraction between stars in a binary pair causes them to orbit each other, just as the Moon orbits Earth. The closer paired stars are to each other, the faster they orbit. Their orbits do not change appreciably, even over long periods of time.

Two particular stars are so close that they orbit each other every 11 minutes! This implies their centers are about 80,000 miles apart.a By way of comparison, our Sun, a typical star, is more than 800,000 miles in diameter. Other close binaries are also known.b

The theory of stellar evolution was developed by arranging (on paper) different types of stars in a sequence according to brightness and color. Stellar evolutionists believe that stars slowly change from one type to another. However, scientists have never observed such changes, and many stars do not fit this pattern. According to stellar evolution, a typical stars volume, late in its lifetime, expands to about a million times that of our Sun and finally collapses to become a small star about the size of Earth (a white dwarf) or even smaller (a neutron star).

Only such tiny stars could have their centers 80,000 miles apart and still orbit each other. Obviously, these fast binary stars did not evolve from larger stars, because larger stars orbiting so closely would collide. If two stars cannot evolve into a condition that has them orbiting each other every 11 minutes, one wonders whether stars evolve at all.

61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

Evolutionists claim that stars form from swirling clouds of dust and gas. For this to happen, vast amounts of energy, angular momentum, and residual magnetism must be removed from each cloud. This is not observed today, and astronomers and physicists have been unable to explain, in an experimentally verifiable way, how it all could happen.a

The most luminous stars in our galaxy, called O stars, are "burning fuel" hundreds of thousands of times faster than our Sun. This is so rapid that they must be quite young on an evolutionary time scale. If these stars evolved, they should show easily measurable characteristics such as extremely high rates of rotation and enormous magnetic fields. Because these characteristics are not observed, it seems quite likely these stars did not evolve.

If stars evolve, star births should about equal star deaths. Within our Milky Way Galaxy alone, about one star dies each year and becomes an expanding cloud of gas and dust.b Deaths of more massive stars are much brighter, more violent explosions called supernovas. Star births, on the other hand, would appear as new starlight not present on the many photographic plates made decades earlier. Instruments which could detect dust falling into and forming supposedly new stars have not done so.c Actually, stars that some astronomers believe are very new are expelling matter. We have seen hundreds of stars die, but we have never seen a star born.d

Also, some stars are found where astronomers agree they could not evolve, near the center of our galaxy. These short-lived stars orbit a massive black hole, where gravity is so strong that gas and dust clouds could never evolve into a star. Instead, the black holes massive gravity would pull such clouds (supposedly evolving stars) apart.e

Nor could stars have evolved in globular clusters, where up to a million stars occupy a relatively small volume of space. [See Figure 172 on page 336.] Wind and radiation pressure from the first star in the cluster to evolve would have blown away most of the gas needed to form the other stars in the cluster.f In other words, if stars evolved, we should not see globular clusters, yet our galaxy has about 200 globular clusters. To pack so many stars that tightly together requires that they all came into existence at about the same time.

Poor logic is involved in arguing for stellar evolution, which is assumed in estimating the ages of stars. These ages are then used to establish a framework for stellar evolution. That is circular reasoning.g

In summary, there is no evidence that stars evolve, there is much evidence that stars did not evolve, and there are no experimentally verifiable explanations for how they could evolve and seemingly defy the laws of physics.h

Figure 27: Spiral Galaxies.

Evolutionists now admit that galaxies cannot evolve from one type to another.a There are also good reasons why natural processes cannot form galaxies.b Furthermore, if spiral galaxies were billions of years old, their arms or bars would be severely twisted.c [See Figure 170 on page 325.] Because they have maintained their shape, either galaxies are young, or unknown physical phenomena are occurring within galaxies.d Even structures composed of galaxies are now known to be so amazingly large, and yet relatively thin, that they could not have formed by slow gravitational attraction.eSlow, natural processes cannot form such huge galactic structures; rapid, supernatural processes may have.

Stellar Nursery, or Is the Emperor Naked?

The popular media frequently claim that stars are actually seen evolving and that pictures of these "stellar nurseries" prove it. Impressive pictures of the Eagle Nebula (Figure 26) are usually shown. Many people accept the claim without asking themselves, "Do the pictures contain anything that shows stars evolving?" Of course not. If stars were evolving, other physical measurements could confirm it. Where are those measurements? Silence.

This willingness to accept what others tell us reminds one of the tale in which citizens told their naked emperor he was nicely dressed. Rather than believing or reporting what their eyes clearly told them, people preferred to accept what others said—or at least not object. Better not disagree or even ask questions; it could be embarrassing.

Why do some astronomers say stars are evolving? 

Until recently, the atmosphere prevented astronomers from seeing infrared radiation from space. Then, in the late 1960s, satellites outside the atmosphere made infrared sky surveys that showed some surprisingly warm clouds of dust and gas in our galaxy. Several things could cause this heating. Perhaps a dim star (a brown dwarf) is behind the cloud, maybe something nearby exploded, or a star is dying as it is being pulled into a massive black hole. Those who struggled to understand how stars evolved had a different interpretation: "Gravity is collapsing the cloud, raising its temperature. In thousands of years, it will become a star." Still other interpretations are possible.

NASA's claim in 1995 that these pictures (Figure 26) showed hundreds to thousands of stars forming was based on the speculative "EGG-star formation theory." It has recently been tested independently with two infrared detectors that can see inside the dusty pillars. Few stars were there, and 85% of the pillars had too little dust and gas to support star formation. "The new findings also highlight how much astronomers still have to learn about star formation." [Ron Cowen, "Rethinking an Astronomical Icon: The Eagles EGG, Not So Fertile," Science News, Vol. 161,16 March 2002, pp. 171-172.]

What prevents stellar evolution? 

Just as the Suns gravity does not pull orbiting planets into the Sun, gravity does not automatically pull gas and dust into a tight ball that then ignites as a star. Each cloud of dust and gas in space has a specific amount of kinetic and potential energy, angular momentum, and magnetic energy that must be removed for even a slight collapse. Evidence of that removal is missing. Furthermore, any collapse would only increase the clouds temperature and pressure, which, in turn, would expand the cloud. For more details on these processes, see "Interstellar Gas" and "Star Births? Stellar Evolution?" on page 32, and especially all related endnotes starting on page 89.

If someone tells you that the emperor is well dressed, ask  questions   and  insist  on  seeing  real  evidence.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

A Note of Caution: To date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clocks initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

63. Corals and Caves

Estimated old ages for the Earth are frequently based on "clocks" that today are ticking at extremely slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were thought to have always been very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of, thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show that no known coral formation need be older than 3,400 years.a A similar comment can be made for growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites in caves.b [See Figure 130 on page 223.]

Figure 28: Stalagmites. Water from an underground spring was channeled to this spot on a river bank for only one year. In that time, limestone built up around sticks lying on'the bank. Limestone deposits can form rapidly if the groundwater's chemistry is favorable. Just because stalactites and stalagmites are growing slowly today does not mean they must be millions of years old. As we will see in Part II, conditions after the flood provided the ideal chemistry for rapidly forming such features.

64. Radiometric Dating: Contradictions and Key Assumption

The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (such as the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to "blind tests."a In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias. Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes are above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error—indicating major errors in methodology b and understanding.c One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error.

A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This is a huge and critical assumption that few have questioned. Several lines of evidence show that radioactive decay rates were once much faster than they are today.d A case can be made that earth's radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood. [See "Energy in the Subterranean Water" on p age 424.]

65. Index Fossils

In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that  certain fossils  are usually preserved in  sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood. [For an explanation, seepages 169-181.]

Geologic ages were then associated with each of these "index fossils." Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. [See Figure 29.] Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content a—which, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular, b many discoveries, such as living coelacanths,cwere unexpected. [See "Out-of-Place Fossils" on page 12.]

Figure 29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia. How could two groups of coelacanths, separated by 6,000 miles, survive for 70,000,000 years but leave no fossils? (Endnotes here are under "Index Fossils" on pages 92-94.)

Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs.6 Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)

J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths (nicknamed the coelacanth "Old Fourlegs") and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all. Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours!f

Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution.9 If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.

66. Humanlike Footprints

Humanlike footprints, supposedly 150-600 million years old, have been found in rock formations in Utah,a Kentucky, b3 Missouri,c and possibly Pennsylvania.d At Laetoli, in the east African country of Tanzania, a team headed by Mary Leakey found a sequence of humanlike footprints.6 They were dated at 3.7 million years. If human feet made any of these prints, then evolutionary chronology is drastically wrong.

67. Geologic Column

Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called "geologic column" - and most "geologic periods" are missing at most continental locations. Only 15-20% of Earth's land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct order.b Even within the Grand Canyon, 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious.

68. Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?

DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing.a Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years.b This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly 17-million-year-old magnolia leavesc and ll-to-425-million-year-old salt crystals.d Dozens of plants and animals have left their DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000 - 400,000 years old.e DNA fragments are also said to be in alleged 80 million-year-old dinosaur bones buried in a coal bedf and in the scales of a 200-million-year-old fossilized fish.g

Figure 30: Humanlike Footprints with Trilobite. In 1968, 43 miles northwest of Delta, Utah, William J. Meister found this and other apparent human shoe prints inside a 2-inch-thick slab of rock. Also in that slab were obvious trilobite fossils, one of which was squashed under the "heel." The 10-inch-long shoe print is at the left, and its rock mold is to its right. According to evolutionists, trilobites became extinct 240 million years before humans evolved. Notice how the back of the heel is worn, just as most of our shoes wear today. The heel was indented in the rock about an eighth of an inch deeper than the sole. Others have since made similar discoveries at this location, although this is the only fossil where a trilobite was inside an apparent shoe print.

DNA is frequently reported in insects and plants encased in amber, both assumed to be 25-120 million years old.h

These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reexamine the 10,000-year limit.i They now claim that DNA can be preserved longer if conditions are dryer, colder, and freer of oxygen, bacteria, and background radiation. However, measured disintegration rates of DNA, under these more ideal conditions, do not support this claim.j

Bacteria. Even living bacterial spores have been recovered, cultured, and identified in intestines of bees preserved in supposedly 25-40-million-year-old amber.k The same bacteria, Bacillus, have been found alive in rocks allegedly 250 million and 650 million years old.l Italian scientists have recovered 78 different types of dormant, but living, bacteria in two meteorites that are presumed to be 4.5 billion years old.m Anyone who accepts such old ages for these rocks must also accept that some bacteria are practically immortal—an obviously absurd conclusion. (Because these "old" bacteria and the various DNA specimens closely match those of today, little evolution has occurred.)

Proteins. Evolutionists face similar contradictions with proteins, and soft tissue,o and blood compounds p preserved in dinosaur bones. As with DNA, these remains should not last 70-150 million years, as is claimed for those bones. All this should discredit these old ages.

69. Human Artifacts

At various times and places, man-made objects have been found encased in coal. Examples include a thimble,a an iron pot,b an iron instrument,c an 8-karat gold chain,d three throwing-spears,e and a metallic vessel inlaid with silver.f Other "out-of-place artifacts" have been found inside deeply buried rocks: nails,g a screw,h a strange coin,1 a tiny ceramic doll,J and other objects of obvious human manufacture.k By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years older than man. Again, something is wrong.

70. Parallel Layers

Because no worldwide or even continental unconformity exists in earths sedimentary layers, those layers must have been deposited rapidly. (An unconformity represents a time break of unknown duration—for example, an erosional surface between two adjacent strata.) Parallel layers (called conformities) imply continuous, relatively rapid deposition. Because unconformities are simply local phenomena,a one can trace continuous paths; which sometimes move horizontally, from the bottom to the top of the stratigraphic record that avoid these time breaks. The sedimentary layers along those paths must have been deposited rapidly and continuously as a unit.b

Frequently, two adjacent and parallel sedimentary layers contain such different index fossils that evolutionists conclude they were deposited hundreds of millions of years apart. However, because the adjacent layers are conformable, they must have been deposited without interruption or erosion. [For an explanation of how conformable layers can have such different fossils, see pages 169-181.] Often, in sequences showing no sign of disturbance, the layer considered older by evolutionists is on top! [See "Out-of-Place Fossils" on page 12.] Evolutionary dating rules are self-contradictory.c

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the "origins question" behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young —possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence.

71. Helium

One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium enters the atmosphere at a much faster rate than helium escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering heliums low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmospheres-helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young.a

72. Lead and Helium Diffusion

Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth's crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found.a

Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals.b Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth's crust) must be less than 10,000 years old.c Furthermore, the radioactive decay that produced all that helium must have happened quite rapidly, because the helium is trapped in young zircons.

73. Excess Fluid Pressure

Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock.a If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently.b

74. Volcanic Debris

Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average. At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth's sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.5 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth's sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater Volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed for removing or transforming all the missing volcanic sediments. Therefore, Earth's sediments seem to be much younger than 4.5 billion years.a

75. River Sediments

More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport was much greater in the past as the looser topsoil was removed and as erosion smoothed out Earths terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year. So, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old.a

76. Continental Erosion

The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years.a However, evolutionists believe that fossils of animals and plants at high elevations have somehow avoided this erosion for more than 300 million years. Something is wrong.

Figure 31: Moon Dust and Debris. Concern that astronauts and equipment would sink into a sea of dust was so great that two missions (Ranger and Surveyor) were sent to the Moon for a closer look. The problem, which turned out not to exist, arose from the belief that the Moon is billions of years old.

77. Dissolved Metals

Rivers carry dissolved elements such as copper, gold, lead, mercury, nickel, silicon, sodium, tin, and uranium into the oceans at very rapid rates when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. In other words, far fewer than a million years worth of metals are dissolved in the oceans.a There is no known means by which large amounts of these elements can come out of solution. Therefore, the oceans must be much younger than a million years.

78. Shallow Meteorites

Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth's surface.a Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers.b If Earth's sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by "geologically recent" meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found directly above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.

Similar observations can be made concerning ancient rock slides. Rock slides are frequently found on Earth's surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock.c

79. Meteoritic Dust

Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at todays low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth's crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young.a

80. Rapid Cooling

If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions about the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth.a The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.

81. Moon Recession

As tidal friction gradually slows Earths spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first detected this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth's surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.5-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than most evolutionists assume. [For details, see pages 413-417.]

82. Moon Dust and Debris

If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust—possibly a mile in thickness.a This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67 of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon. [For more details, see pages 418-420.]

83. Crater Creep

A tall pile of tar will slowly flow downhill, ultimately spreading into a nearly horizontal sheet of tar. Most material, under pressure, "creeps" in this way, although rocks deform very, very slowly.

Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should reach their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years.a Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where gravity is greater, and temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, creep rates on those planets should be even greater. Most large craters on the Moon, Venus, and Mercury are thought to have formed more than 4,000,000,000 years ago. Because these craters show no sign of "creep," these bodies seem to be relatively young.

Figure 32: Young Craters. Large craters on the Moon have high, steep walls that should be slowly slumping and deep floors that should be bulging upward. Little deformation exists, so these craters appear relatively young. Similar conclusions can be drawn for Venus and Mercury.

84. Hot Moon

A surprising amount of heat is flowing out of the Moon from just below its surface, and yet the Moon's interior is relatively cold.a Because it has not yet cooled off, the Moon is much younger than most people had guessed, or relatively recent events have altered the Moon's heat flown— or both.

85. Young Comets

As comets pass near the Sun, some of their mass vaporizes, producing a long tail and other debris.a Comets also fragment frequently or crash into the Sunb or planets. Typical comets should disintegrate after several hundred orbits. For many comets this is less than 10,000 years. There is no evidence for a distant shell of cometary material surrounding the solar system, and there is no known way to add comets to the solar system at rates that even remotely balance their destruction.c Actually, the gravity of planets tends to expel comets from the solar system rather than capture them.d So, comets and the solar system appear to be less than 10,000 years old. [For more on comets, see "The Origin of Comets" on pages 263-293.]

86. Small Comets

Figure 33: Small Comets. The Dynamic Explorer satellite took this picture in ultraviolet light showing small comets (the dark spots) colliding with Earth's upper atmosphere. The comets begin to break up 800 miles above the Earth's surface, then frictional heating vaporizes the pieces and their descent stops at an elevation of about 35 miles. The water vapor, which soon dissipates, blocks ultraviolet light from Earth, producing the dark spots. The northern lights are shown by the halo.

Photographs taken from Earth-orbiting satellites show small, ice-filled comets striking Earth's upper atmosphere at an average rate of one every three seconds.a [See Figure 33.] Each comet adds 20-40 tons of water to the Earth's atmosphere. If this influx began when evolutionists say the Earth started to evolve, all our oceans would have come from small comets. Actually, impact rates were undoubtedly greater in the past, because the planets have swept many of these comets from the solar system. Therefore, small comets would have placed much more water on Earth than is here today. Obviously, this did not happen, so oceans look young. [See also pages 271 and 279.]

87. Hot Planets

Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune each radiate away more than twice the heat energy they receive from the Sun.a Uranusb and Venusc also radiate too much heat. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from nuclear fusion,d radioactive decay, gravitational contraction, or phase changes within those planets. This suggests that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off.f

88. Solar Wind

The Sun's radiation applies an outward force on particles orbiting the Sun. Particles less than about one 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have been "blown out" of the solar system if it were billions of years old. Yet these particles are still orbiting the Sun.a Conclusion: the solar system appears young.

89. Poynting-Robertson Effect

Dust particles larger than about one 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter form a large disk-shaped cloud that orbits the Sun between the orbits of Venus and the asteroid belt. This cloud produces zodiacal light.a Forces acting on these particles should spiral most of them into the Sun in less than 10,000 years. (This is called the Poynting-Robertson effect.) Known forces and sources of replenishment cannot maintain this cloud, so the solar system is probably less than 10,000 years old.

This is how the Poynting-Robertson effect works: Rain falling on a speeding car tends to strike the front of the car and slow it down slightly. Likewise, the Sun's rays that strike particles orbiting the Sun tend to slow them down, causing them to spiral into the Sun. Thus, the Sun's radiation and gravity act as a giant vacuum cleaner that pulls in about 100,000 tons of nearby micrometeoroids per day. Disintegrating comets and asteroids add dust at less than half the rate at which it is being destroyed.b

A disintegrating comet becomes a cluster of particles called a meteor stream. The Poynting-Robertson effect causes smaller particles in a meteor stream to spiral into the Sun more rapidly than larger particles. After about 10,000 years, these orbits should be visibly segregated by particle size. Because this segregation is generally not seen, meteor streams are probably a recent phenomenon.c

Huge quantities of microscopic dust particles also have been discovered around some stars.d Yet, according to the theory of stellar evolution, those stars are many millions of years old, so that dust should have been removed by stellar wind and the Poynting-Robertson effect. Until some process is discovered that continually resupplies vast amounts of dust, one should consider whether the "millions of years" are imaginary.

90. Supernova Remnants

In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so.a These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years' worth of supernova debris are seen.b So, the Milky Way looks young. [See Figure 34.]

Figure 34: The Crab Nebula. In A.D. 1054, Chinese observers (and perhaps Anasazi Indians of New Mexico and Arizona) witnessed and described a supernova. It was visible in daylight for 23 days and was about as bright at its peak as a full moon. Today, the debris (or remnants) from that explosion comprise the Crab Nebula.

Thanks to radio telescopes, most of these remnants should be visible for a million years. At the rate supernovas are occurring in galaxies like ours, we have only about 7,000 years' worth of remnants.

91. Connected Galaxies

Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts. This happens too often for all examples to be coincidences.3 If redshifts imply velocities (which is most likely), these galaxies and quasars haven't been moving apart for very long. If redshifts do not always imply velocities, many astronomical conclusions are in error.

92. Unstable Galaxies

Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable; they should completely change their shape in only a small fraction of the universes assumed evolutionary age.a The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.

93. Galaxy Clusters

Hundreds of rapidly moving galaxies often cluster tightly together. Their relative velocities, as inferred by the redshifts of their light, are so high that these clusters should be flying apart, because each clusters visible mass is much too small to hold its galaxies together gravitationally.a Because galaxies within clusters are so close together, they have not been flying apart for very long.

A similar statement can be made concerning many stars in spiral galaxies and gas clouds that surround some galaxies.b These stars and gas clouds have such high relative velocities that they should have broken their "gravitational bonds" long ago if-they were billions of years old. If the redshift of starlight always indicates a stars velocity, then a multi-billion-year-old universe is completely inconsistent with what is observed. If redshifts can be caused by phenomena other than a stars velocity, much of current astronomical thinking is wrong.

These observations have led some to conclude, not that the universe is young, but that unseen, undetected mass is holding these stars and galaxies together. For this to work, the hidden mass, sometimes called dark matter, must be 10-100 times greater than all visible mass, and the hidden mass must be in the right places. However, many experiments have shown that the needed "missing mass" does not exist.c Some researchers are still searching, because the alternative is a young universe. [See "Missing Mass" on page 31.]


All dating techniques, especially the few that suggest vast ages, presume that a process observed today has proceeded at a known, but not necessarily constant, rate. This assumption may be grossly inaccurate. Projecting present processes and rates far back in time is more likely to produce errors than extrapolation over a much shorter time. Furthermore, a much better understanding usually exists for dating "clocks" that show a young Earth and a young universe.

This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?



The  truth  of  Genesis  1:1  is  this:  Fenton  (in  the  late  1800s) translated  the  Bible  into  English  only  after  he  studied  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  OT  and NT,  till  it  was  as  familiar  with  him  as  was  English.  He  renders  Genesis  1:1  as  "By  PERIODS  God  created  that which  produced  the  Solar  Systems;  then  that  which  produced  the  earth."

He  has  a  note  at  the  bottom  of  the  page  saying: 

Literally "BY  Headships." It  is  curious  that  all  translaters  from  the  Septuagint  have  rendered  this  word, B'RESHITII,  into  the  singular,  although  it  is  plural  in  the  Hebrew.  So  I  render  it  accurately.

Did  God  have  to  take  billions  of  years  to  create  the  universe?  Of  course  not;  He  could  speak  and  this  galaxy  or  cluster  of  galaxies  or  whatever,  would  form,  at  the  command  of  His  word.

He  may  have  had  the  angels  suggest  physical  things  to  create;  hence  all  the  diversity  that  is  in  the  universe.  Maybe  God  said,  "Let's  put  that [galaxy - cluster  of  galaxies  -  nebula  -  or  whatever]  over  here  or  out  there.

He  may  later [a  week,  a  month,  a  year,  a  hundred  years  etc.]  said:  "Let's  put  this [again  whatever]  over  there.

This,  God  may  have  done  any  number  of  times,  as  it  pleased  Him.  Laws  were  set  in  motion  for  all  He  created,  and  the  size  and  diversity  was  and  is  mind-blowing.

He  then  could  have  said,  we  shall  make  a  galaxy;  a  spiral  one,  that  will  contain  a  solar  system  that  will  have  a  sun,  and  a  planet,  which  will  be  a  physical  creation  of  immense  beauty;  on  this  planet  I  will  create  all  kinds  of  creatures,  small  and  large,  great  oceans  of  water,  with  living  creatures  in  them,  and  winged  creatures  that  can  fly  through  the  air  of  this  planet.  

So  the  age  of  the  Dinosaurs  came  into  being.

How  long  that  age  continued  we  do  not  know;  maybe  thousands  of  years,  maybe  10s  of  thousands  of  years, though  the  evidence  given  above  would  not  suggest  10s  of  thousands  of  years.

I  have  show  elsewhere  a  mighty  Angel,  one  that  was  in  the  mountain  or  living  domain  of  God,  was  put  in  charge  of  this  planet,  now  called  "earth."  That  angel  rebelled  at  some  point;  there  was  a  great  war  in  the  universe  or  part  of  the  universe  in  which  this  galaxy  contained  this  "earth."  

We  come  on  the  scene  in  Gen.1:2  where  this  planet  has  become  void,  a  planet  covered  entirely  by  water.  A  destruction  that  the  human  mind  cannot  really  comprehend.  This  was  the  time  when  coal  beds,  oil  beds,  natural  gas  beds,  were  formed  and  lay  under  the  surface  of  this  planet.

God  now  sets  forth  to  bring  to pass  in  7  literal  days  what  we  read  about  in  Genesis  1  and  2.

Had  God  already  decided  to  make  mankind after  his  image,  to  offer  them  salvation,  and  become  His  children,  before  the  world  earth  was?  The  NT  says  yes  that  is  so;  but  how  long  before  the  galaxy  and  our  solar  system  and  "earth"  came  to  be,  we  are  not  told.

When  God  had  set,  or  was  setting  by  periods,  the  heavens;  were  they  basically  just  there,  stationary  in  the  heavens?  Maybe,  and  maybe  not.  Was  the  movement  of  the  physical  universe  moving  out  with  every  creation;  or  was  it  created  and  then  told  to  move  out?  

All  of  the  many  details  of  creating  a  universe  we  are  not  told  about.  As  the  apostle  Paul  said,  one  day  we  shall  know  even  as  we  are  known.  It  is  not  important  for  us  today  know  all  the  hows  as  God  determined  it  all.

With  the  physical  knowledge  as  presented  by  Walt  Brown,  there  is  absolutely  no  need  to  think  or  imagine  the  universe  is  billions  of  years  old;  nor  the  earth  as  3  to  4  billion  years  old  as  evolutionists  would  have  us  believe.

How  God  put  it  all  together,  as  we  are  finding  it  is  today  with  our  modern  space  age  telescopes,  is  just  the  way  it  is,  and  for  God  Almighty  no  billions  of  years  are  needed.  He  can  speak  and  it  is  done.

Keith Hunt