"...much of his teachings is this: The universe is billions of years old an astronomy proves it." False. The scriptures contradict such teaching. Also, not all scientific evidences lead to the conclusion that the universe is billions of years old. Nor does the universe's vastness necessarily mean the the universe is of great age.
Fact Check. There is in fact some truth in this statement. Archeology does not lead to a billions of year age. Also, evidences in astronomy/physics of some things in the universe that are young. A supernova in the Large Magellenic Cloud (SN1987A) is evidence of an explosion ~150,000 years ago. However, if we look for evidence of the age of the universe, our star, or our planet in any science that is relevant, we find ample evidence of millions or billions of years of age of those bodies.
If we find an object of only millions of years of age, then is it contradictory to the current estimate of 14.7 billion years of age for our universe? It depends on the finding, but likely not. The ~150,000 year old explosion of the supernova merely places a lower limit on the age of the object, not the upper age. Obviously, the universe must be older than the age of the star. Additionally, the millions of year estimate is no help to a young Earth model as millions is orders of magnitude longer than 10,000 years.
RE: Obviously, no scientist was there billions of years ago nor can anyone go back in a time machine to make critical measurements and tests.
Fact Check. On the surface, this seems like a fairly credible argument. Upon thought, though, this is shown even by YEC scientists to be false. YEC and OEC (as well as secular!) scientists all agree that the speed of light is currently 300,000 km/s. Due to the vastness of space (which the book even agrees is fact), we really only have a time machine! Because light speed is constant, we can only see objects how they were in the past. The Sun, as we see it at this instant, is actually how the Sun was about 8 minutes ago. The light from the supernova mentioned previously is not a true indication of how the star would appear if we could instantly go to that star. On Earth, the explosion shows us how the star appeared ~150,000 years ago! In astronomy, then all we have is a time machine! We cannot determine from Earth observations what any object is like now, only what it was like when the light left its surface.
Additionally, we know that light interacts with matter as it travels through space. Like tree rings, we have a history of what interactions the light experienced on its trip from source to observer. In other words, we don't need a time machine to go back in the past. The time machine comes directly to us, complete with a history of its past!
RE: The Bible indicates that all Creation was completed in six days (evidently six Earth rotations).
Fact Check. To date, I have seen no credible evidence that indicates a young Earth/universe. Let's look at a few of the young Earth classics. I'll not do an exhaustive study of each, just a brief description and short rebuttal of a few select items:
Given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young.
This is an oldie. This one is based upon measurements made on a mountaintop to estimate the rate that dust falls from space to Earth. That value was assumed constant and would be consistent for the Moon. In short, even the experimentor (Pettersson) admitted that results from this would not be accurate as the test was flawed. Results indicated a rate consistent with a layer of dust up to 1 m deep. Subsequent tests were performed and determined a rate of 10 to 100 x smaller than the original estimates. The latter test amounts were consistent with the amount found on the Moon by the 60's lunar missions. The YEC camp, however, continues to hold to the early figures.
The existence of short-period comets means that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind.
As Comets approach the Sun, they heat up from solar radiation. As this happens, they sublimate their material that we observe as a coma and tail(s). Therefore, they evaporate with every passage near the Sun. Any given comet, then, would evaporate completely with time. So, the YECs got this partially correct.
What they are neglecting to mention, is that there is a reservoir for comets - the Kuiper belt and the Oort Cloud. Objects in these location are perturbed by other bodies and occasionally brought into the inner solar system.
We have seen first hand how comets are affected by gravity. Comet Shoemaker-Levy smashed into Jupiter. We also see comets changed by interactions with the Sun or Jupiter to change their orbits or change them from short period to long period comets. Thus, as some comets burn out, they are replaced by objects from these locations.
Saturn's rings are unstable which indicates that they are less than millions of years old.
Here again, good science with bad conclusions. Yes, the rings of Saturn, or any other planet, are unstable in the long term. With time, Saturn's rings will completely deplete of material. The scientific community has known this for some time.
What the YEC camp doesn't acknowledge is that ring systems are also created new. This can occur when a small, close moon (all of the gas giants have them) approach to close to the parent planet. Gravity, in the form of tidal forces, will rip the small moon apart. These are the same forces that cause high/low tides on Earth. When tides become too great, the moon breaks apart and forms a new ring system. So, rings are a transient, yet renewable source.
And many others.... Apparently, the YEC scientists don't want to be confused by the facts.
RE: New scientific theories exist which explain the size of the universe in agreement with the biblical timescale. One example...relativistic cosmology formulated by physicist Dr. Russell Humphrey's based on Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Fact Check. Russell Humphrey's model is filled with technospeak that sounds great and will be virtually incomprehensible by anyone that does not have at least some physics background. That means that most people who read it will buy what he has to say. His theory is based on solid science. However, he fails in the tests of the very theory he is using! The general theory of relativity (GTR) does in fact indicate that clocks run at different rates for objects subjected to strong gravitational fields. He believes we are at the center of a gravitational field and that we experience a different rate for the passage of time than the rest of the universe. This is easily testable.
According to his theory and applying GTR, they further away from the gravitational field that we are in, the smaller the affects of time dilation (the name for the different passages of time under that affects of gravity). Do we have any way of measuring clocks to verify his theory? Absolutely.
A special class of variable star, a Cepheid variable, has a variability in its brightness based upon its mass. The more massive (and more bright) the star, the slower the brightness variation. These variations are so consistent that they are called a "standard candle" and are used to validate distance measurements.
According to Humphrey's model, we should be able to observe Cepheid variables brightness variations at different distances from Earth (i.e., the gravity well), and notice a change in period. The farther the star from Earth, the farther the star is from the affects of GTR which will affect its brightness variation period. What do we observe? No change at all in the periods of Cepheid variables regardless of their distances from the Earth/gravity well.
Humphrey's model is falsified at the most fundamental level.
