Also Available in:

‘Star witnesses’ to a young creation

by

stars

We cannot use science to prove the age of the universe because science can only deal with what is observable now. We can measure the rates of all manner of things in the present. However, to use these as ‘clocks’ to estimate ages, we have to assume a history, which in turn depends upon our beliefs about where we came from. The Bible gives us an eyewitness record of what happened, the order, and the timeframe, which ‘science’ cannot tell us.

Nevertheless, today’s widespread belief in a very old universe fails to account for many ‘clocks’ that indicate a far younger age. Here are two.1

Blue stars in galaxies

Blue stars are the biggest and brightest of all ‘main sequence’ stars, but this means they burn up their nuclear fuel very fast. Indeed, they burn so fast that the biggest ones could not last more than a million years, and the smallest around 10 million years. Yet blue stars abound in spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way. This suggests that these galaxies cannot be even one million years old. This problem for the belief that the galaxies are billions of years old is ‘solved’ by assuming the blue stars formed more recently than the rest of the galaxy. However, no one has observed such star formation and there is not even a viable mechanism for it to happen.2

Neutron stars in globular clusters

Globular clusters are compact, ball-shaped groups of stars that orbit the centre of a galaxy. They supposedly contain ‘very old’ stars. The secular big bang story has great difficulty explaining them.3 Astronomers have seen many fast-moving neutron stars in globular clusters. These are thought to arise from supernovas (exploding stars) within the cluster, where a neutron star is created that is ‘kicked’ out at very high speed. With the compact sizes of globular clusters and the high speed of the neutron stars, all neutron stars should be ejected from such clusters in less than two million years. Many globular clusters should have emptied in a few thousand years. A major study of this so-called ‘retention problem’ called it a “long-standing mystery”.4 These observations, too, are consistent with a young age of the universe.

References and notes

  1. 101 evidences for recent creation are provided in the article at creation.com/age. Return to text.
  2. Lisle, J., Blue stars confirm recent creation, Acts & Facts 41(9):16, 2012; icr.org. Return to text.
  3. Hubble observations cast further doubt on how globular clusters formed; astronomy.com; 20 November 2014. Return to text.
  4. Pfahl, E., Rappaport, S., and Podsiadlowski, P., A comprehensive study of neutron star retention in globular clusters, Astrophysical Journal 573:283–305, 2002; | doi:10.1086/340494.
    Thanks to Paul Nethercott for alerting us to this ‘clock’. Return to text.

Readers’ comments

King T.
It is interesting that Messrs Pfahl, E., Rappaport, S., and Podsiadlowski, P. reach the conclusion that their binary star proposition does not solve the issue and so they then proceed to consider four alternatives.
None of the four includes the straight-forward solution that the globular clusters are not billions of years old but instead are relatively young.
If they did then their neutron star retention problem might have resolved itself in a seamless fashion. However, that would then bring them up against the wall of evolutionary resistance which for them is simply unfathomable.
Willem D.
I'm wondering how I should see this in light of solutions to the distant starlight problem like time dilation as God stretched the heavens; the idea that on Earth only days passed during creation week, while in the rest of the universe processes that would take billions of years took place. Because if that's true, I wouldn't expect to see evidence of a recent creation in space.
Don Batten
This could be a problem for some time dilation models, but not all. For example, Dr Russ Humphreys' New time dilation model, where Dr Humphreys comments:
"The second dilation event, combined with the speed-of-light recession speed of the achronous zone, explains why distant galaxies, especially spiral galaxies, look no younger than nearby ones. This scenario illustrates the usefulness of achronicity."
Roger P.
While science is limited, and probability based, and fully credible testimony gives the actuality, the strongest science (highest probability explanation) does attest to scriptural testimony narrative and thousands not billions age of the universe.
Martyn M.
Hi Don, I thought both John Hartnett and Russell Humphrys said distant stars and galaxies operate on a different time scale to the earth, due to gravitational and other factors. So Millions or Billions of years can pass on these stars while only years or days pass on earth. Is it is necessary then for Stars and galaxies to be seen as "young"?
Don Batten
The latest model of Humphreys that I referred to has a timeless zone, which results in different expectations, as per the quote I gave in the response. Not all relativistic models are the same.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.