QUESTIONS  #7


by  Walt  Brown  PhD



How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is?


In the late 1920s, evolutionists believed that the universe was 2 billion years old. Later, radiometric dating techniques gave much older ages for certain rocks on Earth.1 Obviously, a part of the universe cannot be older than the universe itself. This contradiction was soon removed by devising a rationale for increasing the age of the universe.


Similar problems are now widely acknowledged. [See "Big Bang?" on page 30.] If a big bang occurred, it happened 13.7 billion years ago. If stars evolved, some stars are 16 billion years old, such as the stars in the globular cluster below.2 Obviously, stars cannot be older than the universe. Also, the Hubble Space Telescope has found distant galaxies whose age, based on big bang assumptions, exceeds the age of the universe.3


Figure 172: Globular Cluster. Globular clusters are tight, spherical concentrations of 10,000-1,000,000 stars. This globular cluster, called M13, is about 22,000 light-years away. 


Here is a similar, but less widely known, problem. Let's suppose that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. That is not enough time for stars containing heavy chemical elements to form and then transmit their light to Earth. A big bang would have produced only hydrogen, helium, and lithium—the three lightest chemical elements. Light from the most distant stars and galaxies shows that they contain much heavier chemical elements such as carbon, iron, and lead—elements that could not have been in the first generation of stars to form after the big bang. Evolutionists, therefore, believe that the hundred or so heavier chemical elements (97% of all chemical elements) were produced either deep inside stars or when some stars exploded as supernovas. Much later, a second generation of stars supposedly formed with the heavy elements from that exploded debris.


WELL  IF  SUCH  ELEMENTS  DO  FORM  FROM  EXPLODING  STARS,  THEN  WE  COULD  SPECULATE  THIS  SECOND  GENERATION  DID  HAPPEN  -  Keith Hunt


In other words, a big bang would produce only the three lightest chemical elements. Therefore, big bang advocates have struggled to explain the origin of the heavier chemical elements (carbon, oxygen, iron, lead etc.). To squeeze enough hydrogen nuclei together to form some heavier elements would require the high temperatures inside stars. To form elements heavier than iron requires special conditions or something much hotter—maybe a supernova.


OKAY  SO  SUPERNOVA  STUFF  THEN  MAY  HAVE  HAPPENED  -  Keith Hunt


So, if a big bang happened, there would not be enough time afterward to complete all four of the following:


a. Form the first generation of stars out of hydrogen,
helium, and hthium.


b. Have many of those stars quickly pass through their
complete life cycles then finally explode as supernovas 

to produce the heavier chemical elements.


c. Recollect, somehow, enough of that exploded debris
to form the second generation of stars. (Some were
quasars thought to be powered by black holes,
billions of times more massive than our Sun.


d. Transmit the light from these heavy elements to
Earth, immense distances away.


IF  GOD  DID  IN  HIS  BEGINNINGS - PERIODS - WANTED  IT  TO  BE  SUCH,  HE  COULD  HAVE  JUST  SPOKEN  THE  WORD  AND  IT  WOULD  BE  SO;  HOW  AND  WHEN  IS  ENTIRELY  UP  TO  HIM  -  Keith Hunt


New and sophisticated light-gathering instruments have allowed astronomers to discover heavy elements in many extremely distant galaxies5 and quasars.6 One such galaxy has a quasar at its center.7 If the speed of light has been constant, its light has taken 94% of the age of the universe to reach us. This means that only the first 6% of the age of the universe would have been available for events a-c above. (Only 0.8 b.y. would be available in a 13.7-b.y.-old universe.) Few astronomers believe that such slow processes as a-c above, if they happened at all, could happen in 0.8 b.y.8


AGAIN  WITH  GOD  ALL  THINGS  ARE  POSSIBLE;  HOW  WE  SURMISE  AS  IT  HAPPENED  IS  JUST  OUR  HUMAN  SURMISING  -  Keith Hunt 


Evolutionists can undoubtedly resolve these time contradictions—but at the cost of rejecting some cherished belief. Perhaps they will accept the possibility that light traveled much faster in the past. Measurements exist which support this revolutionary idea. Maybe they will conclude that the big bang never occurred, or that heavy elements were somehow in the first and only generation of stars, or that stars degrade, but new stars don't evolve. Much evidence supports each of these ideas, and all are consistent with a recent creation.


BUT  GOD  COULD  HAVE  IT  ALL  BE  AND  LOOK  AS  IT  DOES  TODAY,  WITHOUT  IT  HAVING  TO  BE  A  "RECENT  CREATION"  -  IT  IS  HE  WHO  FORMS  IT  ALL  AS  HE  WILLS;  THE  HOW  AND  WHEN  IS  NOT  WITH  US  AND  OUR  DEDUCTIONS  BASED  UPON  PHYSICAL  ANYTHINGS  WE  SEE  TODAY.  IT  IS  GOD  WHO  DECIDES  HOW  IT  WILL  LOOK  AND  HOLD  TOGETHER.  TODAY  WITH  THE  SPACE  PROBE  REACHING  PLUTO,  AND  FINDING  NO  METIOR  CRATOR  SMASHES  LIKE  ON  OUR  MOON,  THEY  SURMISE  PLUTO  IS  "YOUNG"  IN  EVOLUTIONARY  TERMS.  THEY  FAIL  TO  PUT  GOD  IN  THE  PICTURE;  HE  COULD  HAVE  DECIDED  PLUTO  WOULD  NOT  BE  HIT  BY  SMASHING  OBJECTS  -  JUST  THAT  SIMPLE  -  GOD'S  WILL  BEING  DONE  -  Keith Hunt


Few evolutionists are aware of these contradictions. However, as more powerful telescopes begin peering even farther into space, these problems will worsen and more attention will be focused on them. If scientists find, as one might expect, even more distant stars and galaxies with heavy elements, problems with the claimed age of the universe will no longer be the secret of a few evolutionists.9

………………..


AGAIN  SUCH  AN  ARGUMENT  BY  BROWN  PROVES  NOTHING;  GOD  DECIDES  HOW  THINGS  WILL  BE,  FOR  AS  LONG  AS  HE  WISHES;  IF  GOD  BUILDS  IT  IN,  HE  CAN  HAVE  IT  STAY  THAT  WAY  FOR  THOUSANDS,  OR  MILLIONS,  OR  BILLIONS  OF  YEARS;  HE  CONTROLS  WHAT  HE  DOES  FOR  AS  LONG  AS  HE  WNATS  -  Keith Hunt