The Mass of the Universe, mass + energy since E = mc², determines how much nuclear burning takes place. If the mass were slightly larger, too much deuterium (hydrogen atoms with nuclei containing both a proton and a neutron) would form. Deuterium is a powerful catalyst for subsequent nuclear burning in stars. Extra deuterium would cause stars to burn too rapidly to sustain life on any possible planet. On the other hand, if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller, no helium would be generated. Without helium, stars cannot produce the heavy elements necessary for life. If the universe were any smaller (or larger), not even one planet like the earth would be possible.

The Uniformity of the Universe determines its stellar components. Our universe has a high degree of uniformity. If the inflation (or some other mechanism) had not smoothed the universe to the degree we see, the universe would have developed into a plethora of black holes separated by virtually empty space. On the other hand, if the universe were smoother, the condensations necessary to form stars, star clusters, and galaxies would never have come about. Either way, the resultant universe would be incapable of supporting life.

The Stability of the Proton affects the quantity of matter in the universe and the radiation level in the range that would affect life forms. Each proton contains three quarks. Through the agency of other particles called bosons, quarks decay into antiquarks, pious, and positrons. Currently in our universe this decay process occurs on the average of only once per proton per 1032 years. If that rate were greater, the biological consequences for large animals and man would be catastrophic, for the proton decays would deliver lethal doses of radiation.

The Fine Structure Constants relate to each of the four fundamental forces —gravitational, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic. Compared to the coupling constants, the fine structure constants yield stricter design constraints for the universe. For example, the electromagnetic fine structure constant affects the opacity of stellar material (Opacity is the degree to which a material permits radiant energy to pass through). In star formation, gravity pulls material together while thermal motions tend to pull it apart. An increase in the opacity will limit the effect of thermal motions. Hence, smaller clumps of material will be able to overcome the resistance of the thermal motions. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly larger, all the stars would be less than 0.7 times the mass of the sun. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly smaller, all the stars would be more than 1.8 times the mass of the sun. Life as we know it would not be able to exist under these conditions.

The Velocity of Light can be expressed as a function of any one of the fundamental forces of physics or as a function of one of the fine structure constants. Any real changes in the velocity (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second) of light would alter all of these constants. The slightest change in the velocity of light, up or down, would make life as we know it impossible.

The ⁸ Be, ¹²C, and ¹⁶O Nuclear Energy Levels affect the manufacture and abundances of elements essential to life. Atomic nuclei exist in various discrete energy levels. A transition from one level to another occurs through the emission or capture of a photon that possesses precisely the energy difference between the two levels. The first coincidence here is that ⁸Be decays in just 10^-15 seconds. Because ⁸Be is so highly unstable, it slows down the fusion process. If it were more stable, fusion of heavier elements would proceed so readily that catastrophic stellar explosions would result. Such explosions would prevent the formation of many heavy elements essential for life. On the other hand, if ⁸Be were even more unstable, element production beyond ⁸Be would not occur. The second coincidence is that ¹²C happens to have a nuclear energy level very slightly above the sum of the energy levels for ⁸Be and ⁴He. Anything other than this precise nuclear energy level for ¹²C would guarantee insufficient carbon production for life. The third coincidence is that ¹⁶O has the right nuclear energy level both to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen and to facilitate sufficient production Of ¹⁶O for life. This means that the ground state energies for ⁴He, ⁸Be, ¹²C, and ¹⁶O could not be higher or lower with respect to each other by more than four percent without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen or carbon for any kind of life.

The Distance Between Stars affects the orbits and even the existence of planets. The average distance between stars in our part of the galaxy is about 30 trillion miles. If this distance were slightly smaller, gravitational interaction among stars would destabilize planetary orbits. This destabilization would create extreme temperature variations on the planets. This would make life impossible.

The Apostle Paul in the book of Colossians and the writer of the book of Hebrews tell us that Jesus holds all things together. How tightly? Just tight enough for life to exist and thrive in the universe as we know it. Science can explain the physics of our universe, but what they cannot explain is the existing delicate balance of forces within the elements that make life possible as we know it. The delicate balance of the universe exists because Jesus created it this way so that life as we know it could exist.

Evolutionists are adrift today on how to explain how all this could have happened. In fact the best explanation that they have is that we live in a very fortunate window of the evolution of the universe where the cosmic separation of star bodies and star clusters and the shells of star clusters are just right, space is sufficiently large, the solar system has evolved to an intricate point with refinement to the degree of 10⁵⁵ in precision^414/348 so that currently in this very fortunate window man can evolve and survive.

Physicists Rees and Carr in Nature magazine^415/610, wrote an article titled, "The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World." In this article they explain that they calculated the mass of the cosmos, from the atom to the entire universe, and they found that the size of planet earth is a geometric mean and average of the size of the entire universe. They also found that the mass of the human body is a geometric mean of the mass of the proton and the planet itself. This means that it is not the cats and the canaries, as delightful as they are; it is not the reeds and the palms and the ferns, as delightful as they are, but the entire universe and planet earth and man have an infra structure of design. Also the reeds, the birds and the insects all figure into this design but for the benefit of man. They further found that these geometric proportions further relate to the electro magnetic and gravitational constants. They are not simply physical particles themselves exclusively.

Biblical Definition of a Fool

Scott M. Huse, in his book The Collapse of Evolution, states,

"While these facts raise absolute havoc with the evolutionary framework, they are in complete harmony with the creationists’ viewpoint. As the Scriptures record: ... The evening and the morning were the first day (Gen 1:5). The deliberate and emphatic repetition of this phrase throughout Genesis Chapter 1 clearly indicates that these were literal 24-hour creative periods. The creation was accomplished in 6 literal days, not through billions of years of gradual development (Exodus 20:11). How appropriate are the words of the Psalmist at this juncture:

"By the word of Yehovah the heavens were made and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts. . . . For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (Psalm 33:6, 9)."^191/27

If the evidence of Science does not support the majority of scientists who teach evolution, then why do they teach that evolution is fact? Only one reason: Man works hard at accumulating so called evidences of science to justify his rejection of Jesus as Lord, not because he does not know that all the evidence point toward God. Man first makes a deliberate decision to reject God, then he spends the rest of his life building a system on a lie to pacify his conscience so he can live with himself.

Does the Bible bear this out? Yes. The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans,

"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools." (Rom 1:21-22).

The Bible plainly tells us that all men already know there is a God. The Bible’s definition of a fool, therefore, is someone who professes a lie, knows it is a lie, but chooses to live out the lie anyway.

What does the Bible say about the teaching of evolution which claims that the world, solar-system and universe are billions of years old? The Apostle Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:3-6:

"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.’ For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the Word of God the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water."

Peter prophesied 2,000 years ago that in the last days men would teach that the present is the key to the past, meaning that the aging process of the earth and solar system are just as they always have been, that there were no instant creations in the past or catastrophic happenings like a world wide Genesis flood as talked about in the Bible. Peter not only foretold the teaching of Evolution, but that men would profess this lie in order to justify the pursuit of their immoral lusts. The issue is immoral justification, not the facts of science. Aldous Huxly discouraged many people’s faith in Jesus Christ. He was very anti-Christian and had intellectual reasons for it, though not legitimately. He wrote in one of his books at the end of his life:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation: sexual and political."²⁰³

Peter also tells us in this passage that the known world was destroyed by water. This explains the reason for the existence of fossil layers which have no logical order and why their is no evidence of evolutionary development between the species found in the fossil layers of the earth. It is the logical aftermath of the destruction of the earth with water. This is also the reason for coal deposits and oil and gas deposits.

The Bible, God’s Word, is absolutely true. The late Frances A. Schaeffer use to say that the Bible is not true because it says "Thus sayeth the Lord," but because it is true to what is there. The true tangible, measurable facts of science do not contradict the teaching of Scripture born out in Genesis, it totally and absolutely confirms it. "Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar" (Rom 3:4).

1. Baugh, Carl. Creation in Symphony. Video Tapes. Glen Rose: Take One Video & Post, 1995.
2. Baugh, Carl. Creation in Symphony: The Model. Glen Rose: Carl Baugh, 1996
3. Carl E. Baugh and Clifford A. Wilson. Dinosaur, Scientific Evidence that Man and Dinosaur Walked Together. Orange: Promise Publishing, 1989.
4. Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. El Cajon: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985.
5. Huse, Scott M. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998.
6. Gish, Duane T. Evolution: the Fossils Still Say No! El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995.
7. Duane T. Gish. Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. Colorado Springs: Master Books. 1993.
8. Kruse, Dale. The Literal Historical Reliability of Genesis. Tulsa, OK: Layman Evangelism Ministry Book Series, © 1999 by Dale P. Kruse.
9. Lubenow, Marvin L. Bones of Contention. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, © 1992 by Marven L. Lubenow.
10. McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Vol. 2. San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers, 1981.
11. Morris, Henry M & Henry M. Morris III. Many Infallible Proofs. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., © 1974, 1996 by Henry M. Morris.
12. Sunderland, Luther D. Darwin’s Enigma. Santee: Master Book Publishers, 1988.