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