Modern science says that the universe is 13.8 billion years old but the Jewish year in 5787 from creation and the Dead Sea Scroll calendar says it is 5948 from creation. I have been long against pre Adamic type theories however my argument is more along the lines that the nature of time may have changed over history. Time is related intrinsically to the speed of light so lets talk about that for a moment!
Most precise value is 299,792,458 in meters per second
300,000 kilometers per second
671 million miles per hour
There is evidence that the speed of light (SOL for this article) is slowing down.
The SOL was about 15% faster around the first century CE
About 200% faster 1000 BCE
400% faster in 2000 BCE
And 10,000,000 times faster in 3000 BCE (Chuck Missler is the source for this information)
How would this affect time?
We know time slows down as it moves toward the SOL (speed of light) and stops at the SOL and so can it be inferred that time would speed up farther from the SOL, this would seem obvious wouldn’t it?
So if time was faster in pre Noachian times, ten million times faster (this is an layman’s assertion not that of a trained scientist) this could explain why the universe and the earth dates much earlier than the Bible. If in theory things age slower as we approach the SOL then could we infer things could age faster farther from the SOL. So could this explain why the earth and universe has aged more than known recorded history.
Here is part article from creation.com
The distant starlight problem
“One was, if stars are really well over 6000 light years away, how could light have had time to travel from them to Earth? Two logically possible answers have serious problems:
- The distances are deceptive: but despite some anomalies in redshift/distance correlations (see Galaxy-Quasar ‘Connection’ Defies Explanation), it’s just not possible for all stars and galaxies to be within a 6000-light-year radius—we would all fry!
But if light were billions of times faster at the beginning, and slowed down in transit, there would be no more problem.”
Why is the SOL slowing down and why is it slowing down less and less, if you look at the charts above from where light was super fast in 3000 BCE but as time went on the rate of which is slowed has slowed down. By 1000 BCE it is only twice the speed of today. If you roll a ball from a hill it starts out fast and is fastest at the bottom of the hill. As the hill is gone and the terrain is flat the speed of the ball slows down and as it slows it slows more and more. To the point where the ball is about to stop it is slowing very little until it settles and stops. What if a scenario happens like that with light?
another way to look at it that is this: Science first of all can only measure physical time, meaning how matter has aged like the way a person ages and how one individual person ages is not always reflective on how old they are in mathematical time. So some people are 50 years old in calendar/clock (mathematical time) but look as if they are 60 or some people are 55 but look 37. Science cannot prove the actual calendar age of the universe only how much material has aged. The assumed 13.8 billion years science says the universe is aged presumes that the forces of physical matter have been constant. For instance if a 2010 Ford was driven around Boston for 15 years it would look older than the same 2010 Ford driven around Houston, TX. This is because in Boston there is more snow and ice and de-icing salt to de-ice the roads that accelerates rusting on vehicles. In Houston without all the salt the same model year would appear newer but is not. So if in the primordial era of creation the forces of the universe were more intense it would have left the universe more aged in appearance, so the universe could look 13.8 billion years but be only about 6000 or so.
I am not a scientist so I will stop here but I believe with what we know about time and the SOL I think we have thrown a lot of doubt on any belief that the universe is really 13.8 billion years old. Even if it looks like it has aged that way because of the way the nature of time has changed over time, so science has failed to make any case at all that the universe is that old!
Also this on the flood.
“Marine scientists have uncovered evidence of one of the largest floods in Earth’s history in the central Mediterranean seafloor.
The flood, known as the Zanclean flood, is thought to have ended the Messinian Salinity Crisis (MSC), a period during which the Mediterranean Sea became partially dried up. Due to shrinkage of its connection with the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea was transformed into a giant saline lake that was partially evaporated by the dry climate of the region, six million years ago.
This massive desiccation left a deep dry basin, reaching 3 to 5 km (1.9 to 3.1 mi) deep below normal sea level, with a few hypersaline pockets similar to today’s Dead Sea. As a first approximation, using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 °C (18 °F) per kilometer, the maximum possible temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 °C (72 °F) warmer than it would be at sea level. Under this extreme assumption, maxima would be near 80 °C (176 °F) at the lowest points of the dry abyssal plain, permitting no permanent life but extremophiles. Further, the altitude 3–5 km (2–3 mi) below sea level would result in 1.45 to 1.71 atm (1102 to 1300 mmHg) air pressure.”
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Zanclean flood or Zanclean deluge is theorized to have refilled the Mediterranean Sea 5.33 million years ago. This flooding ended the Messinian salinity crisis and reconnected the Mediterranean Sea to the Atlantic Ocean, although it is possible that even before the flood there were partial connections to the Atlantic Ocean. The re-connection marks the beginning of the Zanclean age which is the name given to the earliest age on the geologic time scale of the Pliocene
Of course this is not proof of the Noachian flood but it’s a common argument by atheists and other sceptics that there never was a large or global flood. Here you have proof of a large scale deluge and cannot be denied. Also do not put a lot of stake in that this flood mainly concerned the Mediterranean Sea because the continents were structured differently in ancient times. For instance in these times when world was one continent theorized as “Pangea” a flood around the Mediterranean Sea could have covered say what is now South America because of a different continental structure.
There is also the Black Sea deluge hypothesis as well which is a subject I touched on in my earlier Flood article.This is from a site called https://answersingenesis.org/
Evidence for this Black Sea deluge includes freshwater mussel shells in the Black Sea and robotic film of a submerged beach and remnants of human-built structures thought to be pottery and parts of buildings—“not trash and not geology, but characteristic of human habitation,” Ballard said.1 “It probably was a bad day. At some magic moment, it broke through and flooded this place violently, and a lot of real estate, 150,000 square kilometers of land, went under.”
The freshwater mussels carbon date to about 5,000 years old, a time within about five hundred years of the date calculated for Noah’s Flood based on the Bible’s historical record. The mussels are considered evidence for the Black Sea having once been a freshwater lake. Incidentally, this date is considered inflated because freshwater shellfish, which ingest a great deal of long-dead plant material, commonly carbon date much older than their actual age.2
It is becoming increasingly hard to say there was never a flood catastrophe and if we understand that in that time the continents were all one so a local and global flood are one and the same. This proves there is to much evidence of a flood around the area where the Ark of Noach would have landed near the Black Sea close to Turkey or Armenia where the Ararat mountains are. And none of this excludes a world flood because as said before with a one continent world global and local are the same. I don’t have a citation for this because I heard it on a radio program but tropical plant life typically found in very warm climates were found in the frozen stomachs of dead Wooly Mammoth’s found dead in Greenland glaciers.
Here are more thoughts on the Bible and the Big Bang theory.
So has the modern theory on how life to the universe proved the account in the Bible wrong? No and I’ll explain and does the belief in science that the universe is 13.8 billion years old disprove the Genesis account? No and I’ll explain.
So before the big bang the universe in generally believed to have been very hot and very compact and some say of infinite density, sort of like the conditions of a black hole. Infinite density would assume equal gravity, that’s issue 1 with the BBT without a divine assistance, is that black hole level gravity means in order the escape a black hole something must travel above light speed. No form of mass can ever travel light speed so it is impossible in my mind for mass to have been able to expand in conditions with that high gravity. For me that sinks the big bang, infinite mass can not ever expand. Now lets talk about the Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
It sounds like science has not disproven the Bible and matter of fact the Genesis creation account was far closer to modern science then earlier pagan creation accounts. So Genesis describes well what the state of the universe before the expansion of matter and energy happened. Now big bang theorists say this was less an explosion but a fast expansion of space and time co-equally. This makes great sense in that God molded and formed matter, energy, space and time like clay. After God said let there be light ,later on he put the stars in orbit in such a way as to give light to the day and light to the night and be signals for seasons, days and years. (Gen.1:14-19
So what about a six day creation vs. a universe that is 13.8 billion years old?
Is mathematical time the same as physical time, not always. Their sameness relies on the forces of nature being constant. Science can’t know how many ticks on a clock occurred since the beginning of the universe, they measure physical time based on calculations on how things age. It’s approximated that the universe is about 13.7-13.8 billion years old based on the oldest stars and expansion since the big bang. However if the forces at work in the universe were not constant then the that throws off time estimates. For instance it’s believed the Rocky mountains are newer than the Appalachians near where I live. It is the forces of nature that age a mountain range and if the forces of nature that aged the Appalachians were more intense in the days of creation then were the forces of nature that aged the Rockies.They say the Appalachians were formed when Africa crashed into North America and that is why Africa sort of looks like it fits into North America.This makes sense because the Appalachians are not growing and more or less jolted up when Africa collided with North America and then stopped growing soon after whereas the Rockies continue to grow. But this does not prove that one is older than the other. God could have quickly caused Africa to crash into North America and used other forces to grow the rockies,mainly tectonic forces.
I live in an area where winters are harsh and the salt and sand used to de-ice the roads ages cars quite quickly. I had to get rid of a Subaru with only 82K miles on it because it was so rusted out including the under carriage(mostly the under carriage). Had the same car been driven 82,000 miles in Texas it would have been in mint condition or had my car been garaged in New England as well but I live in an apartment. So winters really beat my car up. So there is a clear difference between physical time and mathematical time and don’t get me wrong I don’t dispute that the universe has been aged 13 billion years but that does not make it 13.7 billion years on ticks on a clock.
Regardless of what mainstream science says the universe can and likely is less than 10K years in age. Remember God controls time and not vice versa, God can and does manipulate time like silly puddy, don’t forget time slows down as it approaches the speed of light and may stop at the speed of light. Matter of fact Danish scientist Lene Hau stopped light from moving in 2001. So why couldn’t God stop light and this likely as Einstein believed stopping light would stop time.
If God can stop time by stopping light then this fully throws off any notion of the universes age in mathematic terms being accurate.
In Genesis/Breishit there was not mathematic time until God placed luminaries in the background of the heavens to signal, seasons, days and years (Gen 1:14-19) and the “big bang” happened further back in Genesis 1:3 when God said “yehi or/let there be light”
So time did not exist as we know it in the primordial age of creation. So 13.7 billion years does not mean anything!
How plausible is the big bang happening randomly?
“If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million it would have
recollapsed before it reached its present size. On
the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a
million, the universe would have expanded too
rapidly for stars and planets to form.”
There you have it from Stephen Hawking (hundred thousand million million is a quadrillion I think)
So the odds of the big bang happening randomly would not even be 1 in a million or a billion but in the quadrillions. There is something called big bang natural selection, meaning that there were many failed BB’s before one worked but likely the number of the failed BB’s would have had to have been in the billions or trillions or even quadrillions with billions of years between each big bang. Because the failed BB’s would result in massive black holes which would take a long time to become dense enough to re-expand.
Also what I pointed out earlier that if the conditions of a pre big bang universe should in theory have had black hole level gravity. No mass or even light can escape a black hole. That is why they are called black holes because light can not escape, if you went inside a BH they would likely be well illuminated but the light can’t ever escape. I don’t think there is any chance of a random big bang.
Thank you all and God bless and put any questions in the comments.
Leave a Reply