Numerous scientists, astrologists, physicists, cosmologists and others, have long known of the huge number of facts which prove without doubt that the earth could not have been in existence more than a few thousand years. Yet they sweep that under the rug and spend years and millions of dollars attempting to con people into believing that it was created from nothing, by nothing, some 14 and one half billion years ago. Most know better. And, they better keep quiet if they want to remain in good standing within their profession. Such is criminal and should be treated as such.
Let us, again, go through a few of the numerous things which prove the above claim, and we can refer you to others also. Here are three remarks by men who acknowledge the scam.
"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." (L. C. Birch and P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967).
"I argue that the ‘theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all." (R. H. Peters, "Tautology to Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist, Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1.)
Note quotes below by: "Robert Jastrow (September 7, 1925 – February 8, 2008) was an American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist, populist author and futurist." (Wikipedia)
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation." —*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe (1981), p. 19.
In an interview with Christianity Today, Jastrow said "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, very living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
("A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview With Robert Jastrow," Christianity Today, August 6, 1982)
Those men knew what you are about to read below and much more which prove that the cosmos cannot be billions of years old. Those who propone the "Big Bang" and natural evolution have to do so to try and prove naturalistic evolution...which can't be done. But those numerous years which they have tacked on to the approximately 10,000 actual years are necessary to camouflage their other explanations of evolution. Their theories (which are not theories, but simply wild assumptions) would have taken a lot more than the billions of years they have now set and still could not have possibly occurred.
How old is Planet Earth? This is an important question, for even though long ages of time are not a proof of evolution, yet without the long ages evolution could not occur (if it were possible for it to occur at all).
Actually, there are many facts which prove the world is young. We will explain a few of them:
There is proof in the stars themselves. Read this carefully. There are numerous star clusters in the universe. Such a "cluster" is a circular ball made up of billions of stars, each has its own orbit.
"Because the orbits are elliptical, they have a tendency to be interlocking. An extremely large circular star cluster, with similar stellar orbits within it is found at the center of each saucer-shaped island universe. Evidence indicates that each of these giant packs of stars is moving in a certain direction. Science tells us that some of these clusters—with their stars—are moving so rapidly that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were, very old." (Evolution Encyclopedia Vol., Chapter 6: The Age Of The Earth)
"Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large. These massive stars radiate energy very rapidly—some as much as 100,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our own sun. On the hydrogen basis of stellar energy, they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be far too gigantic." (Ibid)
"Some stars are radiating energy so intensely that they could not possibly have survived for a long period of time. This includes the very bright 0 and B class stars, the Wolf-Rayert stars, and the P Cygni stars. Radiation levels of 100,000 to 1 million times as much as our own sun is emitted by these stars! Yet, by the standard solar energy theory, they do not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years." (Ibid)
There are other facts involving the stars which show the universe could not be very old at all. But let us move on to other proofs.
Fred Hoyle, a famous English astronomer who lived from 1915 to 2001 and was noted primarily for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. One of his most famous and repeated quotes was: "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" Hoyle was not a believer in life having been by God, but rather he ventured the opinion that it may have been brought here from some pre-existing life in outer space. A foolish stand since that answers nothing. It would have had to begin some place.
He based his assumption on the fact that he had said before, "Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?".
Fred Hoyle, also claimed that the universe cannot be as old as Big Bang theorists contend, since there would be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now because hydrogen is constantly being turned into helium as stars shine. Yet there remains an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, proof that the universe cannot be very old.
There is even adequate proof within our own solar system to prove the universe is young. Most scientists who are engaged in the field of astronomy claim that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years life here would have ceased to exist, for recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—for life to be sustained on our planet.
"Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct, visual measurements that indicate that the sun's diameter is shrinking at a rate of about. 1 percent each century or about five feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinking has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm that the sun is shrinking, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much." (W. T. Brown, In the Beginning, p 19.)
"If the sun had formed as is assumed by most scientists today, nuclear fusion could never have become its energy source. Evidence from the solar neutrino experiment, global solar oscillations, and measured solar shrinkage all are strong evidence against the existence of nuclear fusion in the sun. Any alternate energy source necessarily means a shorter maximum lifetime." (Paul M. Steidl, "Solar Neutrinos and a Young Sun" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, pp. 60, 64.)
These are only a few (although one would be adequate) of the things which prove that the universe is young. In fact there are dozens more, either one of which totally refutes the billions of years of age for the universe as promoted by atheistic evolutionists. But one may as well be talking to an inanimate object. All these proofs which demolish the "Big Bang" joke, are brushed aside as if they do not exist.
"Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction." (Proverbs 10:14 KJV)