Astronomy’s Indications of an Older Universe

Christian apologist, Frank Turek, discuses the origin of the universe and includes this observation by astronomers:
“Robert Jastrow suggested the same when he ended his book God and the Astronomers with this classic line:  ‘For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.’”
Excerpted from Turek’s book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (p. 84)
Gorman Gray has addressed this issue in The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits (p. 20,21).
Dr. Duane Gish has authored a book entitled Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. Dr. John Morris has published The Young Earth. Neither publication addresses the question of the speed of light and the magnitude of the universe. When asked, separately, why they did not pursue that topic, these well-known authors answered almost identically. Both simply asserted that they did not want to get into that subject. Explanations attempted by other writers leave thinking people uneasy. A large segment of creationists interpret Genesis as limiting the age of the universe to a maximum of 10,000 years. And yet galaxies exist whose light requires millions, even billions of years to travel to earth. How can this be?
The question begs for an answer.
So far, no one has suggested a satisfactory response to this problem. Despite various attempts, doubts persist that this issue has been resolved. Barry Setterfield has proposed that light velocity has changed from near infinity at the original creation to the presently measured rate. His theory thrived for a while among creationists, then was less popular but is still within consideration. Dr. Russell Humphreys, creationist physicist, has offered an attempt, and because it has largely replaced the previous unsatisfactory answers in popularity, chapter 7 [in The Age of the Universe] will offer a more elaborate critique of his idea. Dr. Humphreys, like Setterfield, tackles the problem head-on, but both may be leading us down a dangerous, “snowbound” trail. Mistaken basic ideas followed by ever so perfect logic necessarily lead to a mistaken conclusion….
Creationists have a serious problem. Avoidance of the subject by some of the top leadership, a lack of consensus everywhere, and quick response to any glimmer of hope (such as the current interest in relativity or the changing speed of light) is a tacit admission that the answer has eluded us. Young-universe creationists are dogged by an unresolved problem.
…Creationists are trying to make the Bible say what it does not say in the same way that theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists are trying to make the rocks say what they do not say. …Whether promoting uniformitarian geology or a mandatory young universe, we are asking our listeners to believe something for which there is neither biblical nor scientific proof in either case. Arguing from an inaccurate factual or biblical base—disaster is assured.
In taking the undefined-age-of-the-universe position, no concession is made to popular scientific opinions regarding the age of the cosmos or world geology. Acceptance of Flood geology leaves one an outcast to evolutionists and rejection of a mandatory young universe leaves one an outcast among many creationists, hardly evidence of yielding to intellectual pressure.…The straightforward Bible interpretation offered here solves all major problems by keeping us out of dangerous territory, namely, a universe required to be young and a fossil record required to be old. It is a simple, biblical solution for both errors, unpopular to both camps.

The Context of Dinosaurs

Genesis Apologetics has posted a 20 minute video on YouTube entitled: Does the Bible (Job 40) Describe a Sauropod Dinosaur (Behemoth)? It gives an informative summary of the amazing design of these animals and convincing evidence for the global Genesis Flood.  Young Earth Creationism (as represented in this video) and Young Biosphere Creationism (as advocated on this web site) hold in common this belief in the way dinosaurs relate to Scripture and the fossil record.

The Origin of Oxygen

One of our readers (Wes S.) submitted this post for our consideration. Written from a Young Earth Creationism perspective, it also corresponds to Young Biosphere Creationism in it’s argument against macroevolution.

Origin of oxygen more complex than imagined
by Barry Tapp

…The article [by James Kasting, in Nature] outlines various creative ways that researchers have tried to address these problems [of adequate levels of oxygen in early earth’s atmosphere] over the years, but ends with a rather forlorn conclusion: ‘The ancient atmosphere may have had a more complex evolution than we imagined.’ In essence the author admits that within an evolutionary framework the data is contradictory, and no resolution of the contradictions is in sight, hence the need for ‘creative thinking’.

However, it is the naturalistic evolutionary framework that is the problem. Within this framework a reducing atmosphere is needed initially if the first cell is to have any possibility of arising by chance.3 But it must then change into an oxidizing atmosphere to permit the evolution of aerobic bacteria and multi-cellular life.

These problems disappear when the problem is approached from a biblical framework. There never was a great oxidation event because oxygen, at concentrations necessary for life to flourish, was present in the atmosphere during Creation week at the beginning. The geological evidence, including sulfur minerals and carbonate rocks, is explained by deposition during the early part of the global Flood.

Read the full article at

The Global Flood

One of the convictions of the Young Biosphere Model of creationism is belief in a global flood as recorded in Genesis, chapters 6-8. We hold this belief in common with the Young Earth Model.

Young Earth creation sites have many helpful resources on the flood and its pivotal role in interpreting the geological strata and fossil record.

Examples from

Fossil graveyards point to global Flood
“What sort of catastrophe would be required to entomb over 120 species of marine invertebrates in fined-grained rock? 
This is not just a hypothetical question. In the Canadian Rockies, over 120 species of marine invertebrates have been found preserved in a famous formation known as The Burgess Shale. Most of these animals were soft bodied, and many are so exquisitely preserved that you can still see the food in their stomachs!…” Continue reading at…

Another blog post there discusses the significance of fish and whale fossils:

This bog post cites the conclusion of secular researchers about why ankylosaurs fossils are usually upside down:

Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

Dr Gleason Archer affirmed an interpretation of Day 4 that is consistent with the Young Biosphere Creation model.

Genesis 1:2-5 thus sets forth the first stage of creation: the formation of light. This must have meant primarily the light of the sun and the other heavenly bodies. Sunlight is a necessary precondition to the development of plant life and animal life, generally speaking…

-Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, 1982.

For additional confirming quotes, see the page here.

Zondervan Encyclopedia

We have added a page of quotations from the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.

This Encyclopedia also confirms Mr. Gray’s interpretation of Day four (Gen. 1:14-19). The article on “Cosmogony” indicates the original creation of the solar heavens and planet earth in Genesis 1:1 prior to the creative actions of Genesis 1:3ff:

“If these days were twenty-four hour segments, then the creation (Gen 1:1, 2) can be posited to have taken place a long time before (with or without a proposed chaotic interlude). . . At any rate, the picture of Genesis 1 sets forth that the original creation occurred at an unspecified period in the past.”

The same article on Cosmogony agrees with the YBC view of God’s Day four’s activity:

“A proposed problem that light was created on the first day but that the sun appears later on the fourth can be solved by positing the sun breaking through the dense atmosphere of the earth on the fourth day at a time naturally later than the separation of the waters of the heaven (on the second day) and the appearance of the dry land, earth (on the third day)”

See the quotes on the Zondervan Encyclopedia page.