TOPICAL NOTES 8-9: UNIVERSE AGE, EXTRA TERRESTRIAL LIFE

© 2025.

8. The age of the universe and our solar system:

After the explosive event that created the universe, the early forms of today's luminous celestial bodies near our part of the Milky Way galaxy would have been packed more closely together than today. So, their newly created light would have reached the early earth quickly.  However, as matter rapidly spread apart as the universe expanded, light rays from these luminous objects would have remained in touch with the earth (regardless of how high their recessional velocities were) due to the effects of special relativity.  So, the light from today’s luminous celestial bodies didn’t need to traverse their currently measured great distances to initially arrive at the earth:  Their light had already reached the nearby earth soon after they formed.  The sun, the moon, and the stars were created in the “beginning” as part of the “heavens” (Genesis 1:1). On Day 4 of creation week they all appeared in Earth's sky evidently after the general clearing of Earth’s global cloud cover then (see Genesis 1: Creation, The Six Days commentary).

What is time?

Studies of the physical reality of time seem to show that “time” is a human concept like money{1} that was fabricated to order our lives, and like mathematics is an aide to study and predict nature.  Humans started measuring time using the sun's daily and yearly light cycles and the moon’s monthly cyclic phases (Genesis 1:14) as early as when Adam and Eve lived before Noah's Flood. Many types of clocks were later invented by humans to measure time more precisely, and when the sun and moon aren't visible. The ancient sundial directly displays “solar time” in hours of the day and the months of the year. Development of sand and water “hour glass” clocks allowed time to be measured even more precisely and also at night. Newer mechanical, electronic, and "atomic" clocks measure time even more precisely. They also measure time 24 hours/day in all kinds of weather and environmental conditions, and are even worn as tiny wrist watches or necklaces.  Nearly all human clocks read time according to the original solar day in subdivisions of hours, minutes, and seconds; and tiny subseconds for scientific applications.

However, the human concept of “time” is not part of nature{1}. Genesis 1:14[1984 NIV bible] described events rather than “time” to record intervals: The lights God placed in the heavens mark seasons, days, and years that occur cyclically due to endless rotary motions of the earth and celestial luminaries. While the physical events that mark time are well defined, the "substance" of the intervals between them that is called “time” is not. Nature is apparently oblivious to time, so living things count repetitive events and sense event magnitudes instead to regulate their cyclic rhythms.  Many plants produce hormones that cause them to flower when their concentrations build up to a threshold level. Daylight destroys the hormones and its intensity varies annually at each locality which synchronizes the seasonal flowering process for different plants. Human brains generate different “clock” periods to follow event intervals of different lengths, but they are all ultimately based on nerve cell electrical synapse firing intervals. Living things die because internal cellular processes have a built-in limited number of allowable repetitions. Cell divisions are limited by chromosome telomere shortening and other cellular processes. Non-living materials may gradually oxidize or develop microfractures and spontaneously disintegrate. However, “aging” of all things generally progresses with man’s invention of time which is a convenient measure of where in its existence span something is. 

The age of the universe

Genesis 1:14 records that God intended the cyclic celestial solar system events to mark “seasons, years, and days”- for human time. So to measure time or age in the universe from Earth before our solar system operated would be impractical since there was no “time standard” on Earth then because our created solar system defines years and days and its subdivisions of hours and seconds.  Since the human concept of “time” apparently is not a physical reality, can humans authentically assign an age of 13.5 billion Earth years for the most distant observable galaxies before either humans or Earth’s time standard for a year (in our solar system) existed?  Of course, older stellar planetary systems must have existed before our solar system, but their planets would have had different lengths for their “years” than Earth.  And there was no “master” clock to link various planetary systems together to mark time back to the creation of matter. It’s noteworthy that scripture treats the “beginning” when the “heavens and the earth” were created as a timeless interval for the earth and its humans before Earth’s 1st day. Perhaps only God knows how long ago matter was created or when the first star formed. 

Mathematical modeling:

However, humans use their invention of mathematics to extrapolate backward in “time” to answer these questions. Mathematical equations such as those used in Newtonian mechanics and special relativity use “time” along side of physical quantities.  So time is part of a “parallel universe” of mathematical modeling that was developed by humans to predict nature (apart from understanding nature).  IF mathematical models are correct, and use correct data and assumptions and appropriate equations with flawless arithmetic, they do accurately verify the behavior of nature- as shown by reality checks using repeatable physical experiments.  Mathematical models also can be used to make real-world predictions of nature using assumed data when it would be impractical to collect real physical data.  Astronomers believe that the universal speed of light can be used as a celestial yardstick to always correctly measure astronomical distances in “light years”.  However, the specific results of mathematical methods (and computer simulations that add layers of electronic hardware and software complexity) must be verified by a reality check to assure they are correct. 

The following famous real-world example illustrates the importance of verifying the results of complex mathematical models with reality: 

Albert Einstein derived equations for his theory of general relativity that purported to describe gravity in our physical universe- entirely by his mathematical calculations.  However, the renound experimental astronomer Edwin Hubble used physical reality from his telescopic measurements that uncovered a flaw apparently in renound mathematical physicist Albert Einstein’s assumed value for the ”cosmological constant” that he used in his equations.  The incorrect numeric value that Einstein used caused them to predict a static universe as he assumed it should be.  (Possibly his thinking was influenced by the then prevailing “steady state” cosmological theory prior to Hubble’s new discovery.) However, Hubble convinced Einstein that distant galaxies were rapidly moving apart and the universe was actually expanding. So Einstein acknowledged his famous “big mistake” and adjusted the numeric value of his cosmological constant and made other small adjustments in his equations to predict an expansion rate to match observed physical reality.   However, after decades of research astronomers are still empirically fine-tuning the calculated expansion rate value to agree with physical reality. The actual data for the corrected recessional velocity-vs-distance graphs of distant galaxies that is used to derive the expansion rate shows more troublesome “scatter” than is presented in introductory astronomy textbooks{2}. This is partly due to problems with accurately measuring the distances to the galaxies.

Einstein's “big mistake” illustrates that mathematical models of nature that are unverified by a reality check are reasonably questionable. This includes the derived 13.5 billion year age for the universe. Unlike Einstein’s purely mathematical calculations, the methods to derive the age of the universe use real-life recessional velocity measurements of the most distant galaxies and data from the cosmic thermal background. However the results were not directly from measurements.  The raw data needed to be corrected to eliminate artifacts and these corrections were guided by assumptions even before the data was used in theoretical calculations. There seems to be no way to verify this derived ancient age of the universe with reality. So checking it is limited to comparing it with results from different calculated methods. Scientists claimed the age results from two methods, the expansion rate of galaxies and the cosmic microwave background, closely agree (see Genesis 1 commentary). However, the assumptions and corrections used with data collection and workup surely assumed the prevailing deep-time origin for the universe. So scientific bias could unintentionally cause results from different calculated methods to agree with the ancient age.

The cosmological redshift:

The expansion rate, age, and size of the universe are based on observed cosmological spectral redshift measurements. This discussion briefly summarizes a recent review article on redshift{6} and explains the current understanding by astronomers about its cause. Data collected by many astronomers from 1976 to 1991 for recessional velocities of galaxies in galaxy clusters was obtained using redshift measurements. The velocities were found not to be continuously variable, but instead they are all quantized in steps of about 37.5 km/sec{6}. Sometimes a quantization value actually splits an individual galaxy!  So the observed red wavelength shift cannot be caused by a Doppler shift in recessional velocity. Also the red shifted stellar absorption lines were not broadened so they are not caused by universe expansion “stretching” the “fabric of space”{6}.  Either of these theories for the cosmological redshift predicts continuously variable galaxy velocities. So these recent discoveries seems to ruin both classical explanations for the observed redshift.

Only one mechanism was offered to explain cosmological redfshift: The “zero point energy” (ZPE) of the 0 degrees K vacuum of space where the light originated causes distant (therefore old) galaxies to have reddened spectra relative to (younger) ones that are nearer to Earth and have proposed higher ZPE energy levels{6}*. Notice this has nothing directly to do with galaxy distance or its light traveling through space{6}. However, large redshifts are always observed for telescopically tiny, faint galaxies without resolvable stars. And the derived galaxy distances seem to be generally calibratable using measured redshifts of Cepheid variable stars in them that have known distances (out to their maximum distance of visibility).

*Author’s note: Because light spectra with red shifted absorption lines comes from distant galaxies, presumably most or all of it originated from high temperature environments within stars, that isn’t a 0 degrees K vacuum having ZPE. If ZPE is not the true explanation for the cosmological redshift then it remains unexplained! It’s disturbing this scientific measurement tool that’s used to claim a 13.5 billion year age for the universe and the most distant galaxies are billions of light years away now doesn’t have an acceptable explanation for what causes it!

Spiral galaxies and the Tolman effect:

The structure of the common spiral galaxies suggests the universe is younger than billions of years old. The linear velocity (km/hr) of stars in the arms of many spiral galaxies was measured to be about constant across their diameters{2a}. So the stars in the outer arms must travel a longer distance per revolution at the same linear speed than stars in the inner arms.  The resulting slower angular rotation speed (deg/hr) of stars in the outer arms would completely “wind up” and destroy their spiral structure in a tiny fraction of the 13.5 billion years now quoted for the age of the universe{3}. The tiny, very red-shifted telescopic images of presumably very distant, oldest galaxies in the universe show the same galaxy assortment that is found closer to Earth.  So many of these very distant galaxies are spirals, but their spiral structures shouldn’t exist for billions of years. 

The Tolman effect predicts the dimmed surface brightness of rapidly receding galaxies would prevent imaging them at these claimed great distances of billions of light years{7}. This questions their claimed recessional velocities, distance, and age determinations, all of which have no reality check as was noted previously.

Scientists point to other agreements with the millions and billions of year age measurements for life on earth and the solar system respectively. So they say the 13.5 billion year age for the universe is expected.  But these scientific studies used published cherry-picked dates from fossils, and meteorite and planetary rocks derived from radiometric methods that were chosen to conform to evolutionary theory and uniformitarian geology they assume is correct and require these ancient ages (above)! So this claimed agreement is a paper tiger. Understanding “consensus dating” uncovers the experts’ circular reasoning for age measurement agreement across the sciences (See Topical note 7, Radiometric dating, Consensus dating).  Topical notes 6 and 7 also explain respectively, how “deep time” evolutionary speciation theory and radiometric dating methods are flawed.

Would a universe that is actually “billions of years” old conflict with the Genesis 1:1 creation verse?

No. Scripture doesn't state a starting time or duration (“when” or “how long” it was) for the “beginning” in Genesis 1:1 when the “heavens and the earth” were created. The Genesis 1 commentary provided evidence the "beginning" was an unspecified interval before the Earth’s first day when scriptural time began. So the claimed 13.5 billion year age for the universe doesn’t challenge Genesis 1:1 or the few other scripture verses that pertain to the “beginning” because of lack of information in scripture. However, some scientific evidence presented above actually suggests the universe is less than billions of years old.

The age of our solar system:

The creation and age of our solar system were concisely covered previously in the Genesis 1 commentary for v1, the “beginning”:  See the sections about summary of creation of the solar system just prior to Critical review of Big Bang coverage, and What can be taken home from this presentation of the “Big Bang” universe creation scenario from modern astronomy?- accretion disks. 

A noteworthy Canadian astronomer recently estimated some stellar accretion disks may have lifetimes of only thousands of years{4}! The growing stars and planets in forming stellar systems gravitationally attract the disk debris until it is consumed.  According to a planetary accretion process known as "gravitational instability", planets may form on timescales of only thousands of years by continuously pulling in gas and dust-size particles without smashing and breaking up, although other studies show a longer age{4}. Our solar system apparently was completed only several thousand years ago when its accretion disk was consumed just prior to earth’s 1st day (Genesis 1 commentary, The waters). So its total age including back to when the sun’s accretion disk first formed was less than billions of years.  This is evidence the 4.5 billion year age of our solar system that was obtained from radiometric dating of space rocks is far too old. Topical note 7 explains why radiometric methods are very undependable.  Notice that credibility for the 13.5 billion year age for the universe likewise depends on a “billions of years” age for the solar system, but this recent evidence suggests that it is much younger! 

A different way to estimate the age of our solar system

Measuring the shrinkage of observed accretion disks that form stellar systems might allow astronomers to make a time estimate for the creation of our own solar system from its disk material apart from radiometric methods. If the accretion disks described in Genesis 1, Big Bang creation{17} were imaged again in perhaps 10-20 years their shrinkage and widening of planetary lanes in the disks caused by gravitational loss of debris material from the disks to the central star and growing planets and might be noticeable, and the disk’s consumption rate estimated. The loss of disk material should match the growth rate of the stars and planets so their creation time from disk material might be estimated. The age for planetary system development derived from this direct measurement method might be surprisingly shorter than most secular astronomers suppose.

Click on live web link to select internet reference:

{1} Cherkawi, Sidi, 2012. A Quest for the Physical Reality of Time, iUniverse Inc, (book).  (This easily read book that includes anecdotal stories cites other references about the study of time.)  

{2} Kay, et al, 21st Century Astronomy, 4th ed., 2013, Fig 19.8, p593. (book)

{2a} ibid. p623.

{3} Freedman R.A. and W.J  Kaufmann III. 2002. Universe: Stars and Galaxies, New York: W.H. Freedman and Co., 576-579. (book)

{4} Kornei, Katherine, Science News, August 27, 2022, Frozen Worlds in Focus, p25. (An astronomy researcher at the University of Victoria and the National Research Council of Canada estimates the process of “gravitational instability” that produces accretion disks allows planets to form by gravitational attraction of debris in only thousands of years). 

Comment: Science News, November 19, 2022, Planets may have more time to form, p7, reviews an article in the Nov 1 Astrophysical Journal Letters.  The letter reported results of a recent study that measured the numerical fraction of stars in numerous star clusters of various ages that have accretion disks with forming stars to determine their lifetimes. It gave a lifetime range of 5-10 million years for the accretion disks they studied.  However, this was not a direct age measurement. Age determination of star clusters used to date the disks in this study is problematical, and no data was included for the different processes of accretion that may occur to form the disks sampled (eg., gravitational instability).  The prevailing consensus about a 13.5 billion year old universe certainly would influence their data collection and workup methods and resulting ages for these accretion disks. Recently, the bright mature southern star Fomalhaut was discovered to have a large “asteroid belt” left over from its accretion disk (internet). The study of star and planet formation in accretion disks is a new field made possible by recent interferometric infra-red and radio imaging technology that can view even into dusty nebula where stars form, so watch for new discoveries!

Author’s note: It seems reasonable that the initial size of accretion disks that form from their stellar nebulae contributes their lifetimes, with the smaller ones like our solar system forming mature planets in perhaps only thousands of years (above).          

{5} Scripture-compatible chronologies use historical and biblical records to determine ages that avoid errors associated with radiometric dating (Topical note 7).  Josephus’ chronology that is used throughout this study provides dating that is consistent with ancient history, including Egyptology back to the 1st dynasty c2900BCE and it closely agrees with pre-Christian Saxon chronology for creation week as c5200BCE (Topical note 3,{21,p122}).  However, Ushers’ and other creation-compatible chronologies give dates for creation week that are also several thousand years ago.

{6}reviewing-redshifts-and-the-zero-point-energy.pdf(onlinescientificresearch.com) 

Setterfield, Barry, October 10, 2023, Journal of Physics and Optics, Reviewing Redshifts and the Zero Point Energy, Volume 5(5):1-9.  A critical scientific review of recent redshift research on Barry Setterfield’s website, https://barrysetterfield.org)

{7}https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com

(The Tolman effect explains why surface brightness is constant for nearby galaxies but not for distant ones.)

9. Habitable planets and extraterrestrial life 

Using Earth as a model planet for life, scientists have determined that many factors must be right for a planet to be habitable for microbial, plant, and animal “life as we know it” on Earth.  To name just a few, it must be the right orbital distance from the right kind of star to have the right surface temperature and illumination.  It must have the right mass for gravity to hold creatures on its surface and retain a breathable atmosphere, and it must have abundant ocean and atmospheric water reservoirs to support life and maintain a water cycle that prevents its loss into space. It should have the correct rotational axis tilt to provide seasons, and a moon with the correct mass, distance, and orbit to stabilize the axis tilt and provide cyclic ocean tides to facilitate mixing.  Systematic planetary searches through optical telescopes have not yet located any planets like Earth within or outside of our solar system, although many other planets (referred to as exoplanets) have been discovered and studied.  Nor have searches with radio telescopes located signals of intelligent life elsewhere. Earth’s habitat with life so far appears to be unique among planets in the universe, as the earth-centered accounts described in the biblical scriptures suggest.  Mars, Earth's nearby neighbor in our solar system shows surface flow channels that are evidence for much surface water in the past that might have supported life. Space probes now target Mars to search for chemical signs of past life in known previously wet areas. Future space missions to certain moons of Jupiter and Saturn that show evidence for liquid water under a layer of surface ice are also planned to search for life.

After systematically searching for life elsewhere in the cosmos for many decades using different hi-tech methods, some scientists believe that life “as we don’t know it" might also exist, or planets unlike earth may harbor life as we do know it{1}.  So scientists prepare themselves for surprises as they continue the search.

What about UFO sightings?

A lengthy PBS television documentary about UFOs aired around 2010 that included classified film footage of saucer-shaped aircraft being built at a US Air Force facility. Before this, the Germans pioneered developing experimental saucer-shaped aircraft in the WWII era that used thermal levitation. This documentary provided convincing evidence that “flying saucers” are secret experimental military aircraft. Evidently, these UFOs are real but they’re not extraterrestrial. So “aliens” are hype.

A biblical perspective for life on Earth-like planets:

The record in Genesis states God specifically made lower life forms on Earth to support humans (Genesis 1:11,29; 9:3). This is the biblical reason for Earth’s “food web”, and it implies searches for primitive life (eg., microbes, algae) by itself on other planets that is not accompanied by intelligent life there will return empty handed. Topical note 6, Evolution explains there is no evidence that microorganisms, which are very complex internally, randomly evolved on Earth from nonliving materials. 

Astronomical research has shown the vast universe has possibly trillions of galaxies with billions of stars in most which entices us to believe that other habitable planets like Earth with life “probably” exist.  However, God evidently supernatutrally cooled the newly created hot earth to form its permanent surface ocean of liquid water that made it a habitat for life “as we know it” (Genesis 1, The waters).  Also, God worked hard during creation week to make creatures and humans to populate it (Genesis 2:2). God's necessary intervention to make various complex lower life forms that support human life is science-based biblical evidence that Earth-like planets would not occur randomly throughout the universe.  And very noteworthy, Christ died once to save humanity here, and repeating His sacrifice on multiple inhabited planets would seem unthinkable! So evidently Earth is the only planet of its kind, or one of just a few that God had a special purpose for.

From a theological perspective, habitable planets could be the basis of a "physical" heaven that some religious teachers speculate exists. Their rarity would make them unlikely to find by telescopic searches.

{1} Grosssman, Lisa, Science news, September 25, 2021, Scientists rethink the habitable zone, p9. (The article describes new ideas about habitable planets)

January 2025

Contact: genesismakessense@gmail.com