Origins Part 5: Older than Dirt

How old is the earth?

I hope you have read the other posts before this, because I don't feel like repeating explanations of the laws of time and thermodynamics.

How do you tell how old something is? Usually, you look for trends associated with aging and try to figure it out that way. Carbon-dating is a popular but inaccurate method, as it assumes that the samples are not affected by their surroundings in terms of carbon.

Carbon tests of historically chronicled hardened lava yielded the result of several million years. A chicken bone from a two-year dead chicken also yielded a huge amount of time. Apparently, Carbon dating is unacceptably inaccurate.

However, there are other tests that can tell us an estimate of how old the earth is. The earth's magnetic field drops drastically every year. By putting the equation in backwards, we can see that 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a field greater than that of the sun. Since this scenario seems unlikely, we can assume that the earth is under 10,000 years old.

The moon is gradually getting closer to the earth. Again, working backwards, it would have been outside of the planet's gravitational pull 10,000 years ago.

From this data, we can conclude that the world is indeed under 10,000 years old.

"But, what about all the millions of years I learned about in school?" is probably what you're saying now. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those millions of years were a bunch of fairy tales that you should never have been taught in a serious learning environment. Why would someone lie to you about this on so large a scale? I will try to address that in a later post. In the meantime, you should post a comment below.

Origins Part 4: Shapes

With dimensions to put matter in, we can now discuss how actual physical things were formed.

The widely spread idea that gravity pulled matter together after the mythical "big bang" holds many logical flaws. First of all, reasons why the "big bang" could never have occurred are explained in my previous posts. Secondly, in an explosion, objects move away from each other. If gravity were to pull two pieces of matter together, it would have been easiest to do at the beginning, right as the "big bang" was taking place. This would have resulted in the pre-universe object not having split at all, as it would have just held itself together with gravity. If gravity did not pull the matter together right away, it would never have been able to pull it together afterwards.

For an example of how objects move away from each other, please look at your hand. Notice how your fingers are closer to each other at their bases, and how they move farther away from each other as they extend. I'm surprised that anyone with a hand could believe that gravity drew matter together after a "big bang." Some would claim that gravity just wasn't strong enough. All I need to refute this argument is two words: black holes.

So where did galaxies, solar systems, stars, and planets come from? In the First-Person shooter game Halo, designers had to input complicated mathematical codes in order to create three dimensional shapes. The Halo world is only a shadow world, meaning that it has no real substance to it, only numbers. This means that our world is infinitely more complex than Halo. If our reality were in some sort of computer program, then our reality would be nothing but a shadow compared to the world of the designer. That world would be infinitely more complex than our own.

Does there need to be a designer? Yes. Computers don't program themselves. Halo took lots of work and math, and that world is much simpler than ours, so our world would take a being infinitely more intelligent than any human to design. If our universe was indeed designed, then it would make sense for there to be physical laws that we could observe and use to our advantage: science. Unless our universe was designed with mathematical logic in place, science is a lie.