THE EARTH, MOON AND THE UNIVERSE.

-

CAN IT BE TRUE THAT THE EARTH AND THE UNIVERSE ARE ONLY A FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD?

SURELY THEY MUST BE BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD, WE'RE TOLD THIS ON TELEVISION AND IN BOOKS ALL THE TIME?

THE AGE OF THE OCEANS.

We've seen that evolution cannot possibly have taken place according science and mathematics. We have also seen that the Bible is in harmony with both of these. Now let us look at some facts about the earth, moon and universe.

Professor Stuart E. Nevins M.S., Professor of Geology at El Cajon, California has come up with some interesting facts. It seems that the oceans are very young. Now if the oceans are very young the earth must be and it would support the Bible. If, on the other hand, the oceans are very old then the earth must be and it would support the evolutionists - agreed?

Now sharpen your pencil again because he tells us that 27.5 billion[6] tons of sediment reach the seas each year by means of rivers, glaciers and submerged volcanoes. To calculate the time required to deliver the present continents into the ocean, we divide the mass of continents above sea level (383 million billion tons) by the annual rate of erosion (27.5 billion tons per year) and the answer is 14 million years. Therefore, the continents are being eroded at a rate that would level them in 14 million years. Yet the evolutionist geologists say the continents have existed for at least 1 billion years. During this period the continents would have been eroded over 70 times! Furthermore during this billion years, 27.5 billion billion tons of sediment would have produced a covering on the ocean floor to a depth of 18.5 miles - yet the average depth of covering of sediment is only .56 miles (e.g., just over half a mile). To produce these 18.5 miles of sediment a layer of rock 38 miles high would have to be eroded off the continents. Where has all this sediment gone? The evolutionists tell us the oceans are over a billion years old. The truth is, of course, that the oceans (and therefore the earth) are shown to be quite young. This supports the Bible!

THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD IS DECAYING SHOWING THE EARTH CANNOT BE MORE THAN A FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD.

Well known amongst some scientists, but not publicised, is the fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying. This has been accurately measured since 1835. Doctor Thomas G. Barnes, Professor of Physics at the University of Texas (El Paso) has completed the study. He is saying:

The time required for the magnetic field strength to fall to half it's present value is 1,400 years. This means that in:-

600 AD it was twice as strong.

800 BC it was 4 times as strong and so on.

Professor Barnes tells us this means that 10,000 years ago the earth would not have been able to support life!

What a mystery it is to evolutionists so it is kept quiet like so many other things because it does not support their case. The Bible says the earth had not been created 10,000 years ago!

WHAT IS THE AGE OF THE MOON?

If we can establish this it will, of course, help us establish the age of the earth.

The evolutionists claim it is about 4,500,000,000 years old, similar to their estimated age of the earth. The Bible says it is only about 6000 years old - what a difference! Could it be I have taken leave of my senses? - I hear you cry! Well, we've already seen what the oceans and the magnetic field say - now let's see what the moon tells us based on material and studies by Paul Garner B.Sc. and Malcolm Bowden C.Ebg., M.I.C.E., M.I.Struct.E.

There are many theories, not fact, about how the moon got up in the sky but here we will consider 3 generally accepted possibilities. Even serious evolutionists discard the others:

I must just tell you about one of the wildest theories before getting serious. The founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith said the moon had broken off the earth at where the Pacific Ocean is now and gone into orbit around the earth. It had taken with it a group of people who were living there now (1840) and dressed like the Quakers in the 19th century!

One theory is that the earth and moon grew independently from accreting dust particles in a condensing nebula. However, actual accretion experiments have shown that colliding silicate particles always tend to erode into smaller fragments, not stick together. The moon would have had to begin at it's present size to attract significant amounts of other material in order to grow.

Another theory is that the moon split off from the earth because of the early rapid spin of the earth. However, to become so unstable the earth would have had to have a rotation of only 3 hours instead of the present 24. This would mean that the earth - moon system would have about twice as much angular momentum as it does today (a prediction based on the physical law of conservation of angular momentum) yet it doesn't have. The theory would also predict that the moon would orbit the earth's equatorial plane but it doesn't, in fact the lunar orbit is inclined by as much as 28.5 degrees to the equator. It would also be unlikely that the earth would survive such a cataclysmic disruptive tidal effect associated with it. There would be vaporisation of the earth's crust and disintegration of the moon because of the gravitational instability.

Finally, another theory is that the earth "captured" the moon from it's own independent orbit by the gravitational pull of the earth. This is the latest theory put forward by P. Cadogan[7]. However, T Gold in the Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society argues against it saying that even if it was possible it is very unlikely. Many scientists admit there are many problems with this theory. The biggest is how could the speed of the pre-captured moon be reduced in order to allow the capture to occur?

Evolutionist geologists claim the moon is no longer geologically active, that is a cold dead body appearing much the same today as it did 3 billion years ago. If it were still active it would be a young age. Equipment left behind from moon probes are registering moonquakes, lava flows and gas emissions so it is still geologically active and not yet in thermal equilibrium. It's still adjusting to tidal stresses. There has even been photographs of such activity. There's plenty of evidence to show that the man in the moon is really just a little boy!

ROCHE LAW.

Those who believe in a special creation (Creationists) believe God brought the universe into being just a few thousand years ago. Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe the universe evolved at a very slow rate taking billions of years (Uniformitarianism). Without these billions of years, evolution would not be credible even to them. As evolution never took place then no matter how much time they claim for the age of the earth, it would not be long enough - even the age they claim of 4.5 billion years. We will now test this assumption against the Roche Law that you will never hear talked about on television because it doesn't fit the evolutionist's model.

The moon is receding from the earth at a rate of 5 centimetres per year, a fact easily established now by equipment left on the moon. Therefore, in the past, the moon was much closer to the earth than it is today - agreed? It can be demonstrated from known physical laws that the moon and the earth could not survive being within 11,500 miles of each other. This is known as the Roche Limit. If we extrapolate the 5 centimetres per annum backwards we find that 2 billion years ago they would have been within their Roche Limit. They would have torn each other apart. Therefore, the moon (or earth) cannot be anything like 4.5 billion years old. Again we see how unscientific evolution is.

LUNAR DUST TELLS US THE MOON IS ONLY A FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD.

The earth is continually being bombarded by meteorites, most of which burn up in our protective atmosphere. The moon is unprotected and even a good pair of binoculars makes it possible to see the craters. In addition, the moon's surface is continually being reworked by thermal "weathering". The dust this produces remains on the surface (unlike the earth where it is washed into the sea) and gathers in low lying areas because there is no atmosphere or water. If the moon is 4.5 billion years old the dust would be very deep indeed.

Let's see what some scientists say on the subject. They're all experts in their own field: British astronomer, R. A. Lyttleton said[8] in 1956 that the dust would be, "several miles thick". T. Gold wrote in his paper[9] said that there would be a vast amount of dust on the flat lunar plains. E. M. Shoemaker said[10] in 1965 said that the lunar dust would be "tens of metres deep". I Asimov says[11] a similar thing; "I get the picture, therefore, of the first spaceship picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail first...and sinking majestically out of sight."

Why did these scientists think there would be so much dust on the moon's surface? It is because they think the moon is 4.5 billion years old. Such a vast amount of dust would have collected on the surface if it was that old. It was unthinkable to them that there could be only a few centimetres of dust on the surface of the moon because it would mean it was only a few thousand years old!

WONDERS OF THE UNIVERSE.

Cosmogony is a branch of astronomy concerned with the evolutionary behaviour of the universe and the origin and behaviour of it's various characteristic features. Modern cosmogony embraces the study of the origin of giant stellar galaxies, stars, planetary systems and the origin of atoms that constitute the universe. Cosmogonical theories assume the universe is expanding or dispersing. As a Christian to me it is irrelevant whether the universe is expanding or contracting as I believe God created it pretty much as it is today. Although cosmogony is beyond the scope of this article I do recommend you obtain books from a library on cosmogony and check the following facts[12] for yourself.

COMETS.

A quick word about comets first because they tell us a great deal: They have elliptical orbits around the sun and they are really just dirty snowballs as is commonly known. These short term comets lose material on their journey around the sun and this is the visible "tale" many of us saw on Halley's comet some time ago. Did you know that one of these comets would evaporate completely in less than a million years? There is no explanation for the existence of short term comets if the universe is 4.5 billion years old. If evolutionist's are correct the comets have been up there 4.5 million times as long as they could be! This means that the universe is less than a million years old - which is what the Bible says.

SPIRAL GALAXIES.

There is a most beautiful spiral galaxy in Ursa Major that can be seen from the top and another in Coma Berenices that is seen end on. The central elliptical body contains only stars but those beautiful spiral arms contain both gas (from which new stars can be formed) and stars. They rotate at a rate of once every 100 million years and if they did not they would collapse under their own gravitation. However, their origin is difficult to explain. Evolutionists tell us these huge galaxies are about 100 billion years old, e.g., they have completed 100 rotations. Yet no galaxy has been observed with it's arm wrapped around the nucleus a hundred times. Indeed, as a Bible believing Christian I believe God created the Spiral Galaxies just as they are today but a few thousand years ago. One thing is absolutely for certain, they cannot be anything like the age the evolutionists say.

GALAXY CLUSTERS.

The Milky Way is our galaxy but this is part of a group of 19 galaxies of about 100,000 million stars. This is our galaxy cluster. Some galaxies have bridges of material between them yet they're moving apart at the rate of 21,000 kilometres per second. If the galaxies had been moving away from each other very long the bridges would not be there now. Indeed, only half a million years ago these galaxies would have been touching one another according the Geoff Chapman of C.S.M.[12]. If the galaxies had been created in roughly their present position as the Bible says, there would be no problem.

We hear a great deal about missing mass. It seems 98% of the mass that keeps the galaxy clusters together is missing. The Virgo cluster for example, has 50 times less mass than it should have. Some astronomers claim there are very many large black holes within these clusters to keep them together but there is no evidence for this. They would be easily detected. This is a major problem for evolutionists and has never been properly explained[13].

GLOBULAR CLUSTERS.

These are thousands of tightly packed groups of stars giving the appearance of being one large star. There is a good example of a globular cluster in Serpens located outside the arms of the Milky Way. In our Milky way there are estimated to be about 100 million of these and are said to be about 5.5 billion years old. They're moving away from our galaxy at a terrific speed and would be outside it in 1 million years - yet they're still within it! Is our universe a few thousand years old or 5.5 billion years old? Well, it must be less than a million years old.

Geoff Chapman also points out that the spherical shape of globular clusters is a problem for evolutionists. The gravitational pull of our galaxy should distort them towards the centre of the galaxy in billions of years but they show no such thing. This is another astronomical anomaly.

Astronomers J. E. Hesser and S. J. Shawl tell us[14] that each globular cluster should have it's own solar wind. This would result in a build up of gas within the cluster. With all those stars and over many millions of years there would be a large quantity of matter. They calculate that in a cluster of 1 million stars over 10 million years there would be a build up of matter equal to more than 50 times the mass of our own sun. Yet a survey of 50 clusters shows no evidence of this gas. What is the explanation? In 4.5 billion years there should be oodles of the stuff. Certainly according to the evolutionist model there must have been enough time yet it isn't there - so there can't have been! You're ahead of me I'm sure - there hasn't been enough time because the universe is only a few thousand years old - as the Bible says!

Astronomer, Bruce Margon said[15], "We have reached an impasse; inevitably some cherished scientific principle must fall." Well, we know which one it should be!

A young student at Lancaster University asked me; "Can you give me more information about this alternative to evolution, I didn't know there was one." She had never been told there was an alternative. What a sad indictment of the UK education system!

THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH.

Here there is another problem for evolutionists. God seems to have got it just right for us but the earth's rotation has not always been 24 hours. Geoff Chapman tells us that it's rotation is slowing by about 30 seconds per century. That doesn't seem much but extrapolate back and you will see that 300,000 years ago the rotation would have been only a few minutes and would not have been able to support life.

It is clear to the open minded that the universe can only be a few thousand years old.

[6] The billion used in this paper equals one thousand million as generally adopted now.

[7] "The Moon's Origin." Mercury March/April 1983 issue pages 34-38.

[8] "The Modern Universe." Harper Brothers, New York page 72.

[9] "The Lunar Surface." Page 585.

[10] "Preliminary Analysis of the Fine Structure of the Lunar Surface" Ranger VII part II page 75.

[11] "Science Digest," page 36 ("14 Million Tons Of Dust Per Year.") 1959.

[12] Geoff Chapman of the Creation Science Movement from who's work some of this is taken.

[13] "The Heavens: Stars, Planets, Galaxies." Page 75.

[14] "Astrophysical Journal." Vol 217, (1977) page 143.

[15] "The Missing Mass." Mercury. January 1975, page 6.