Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Five

Neptune possesses two moons which are uniquely difficult to explain from evolutionary assumptions. They are called Triton and Nereid. Triton follows a highly circular orbit near Neptune but moves retrograde around the planet. Nereid follows the most elliptical orbit known except for the comets, with an eccentricity of .75. Nereid moves prograde, (right-handed) around Neptune, but not in a circular orbit as the Nebula Hypothesis says. Both of these moons have very inclined orbits. They are tilted in two opposite directions compared to Neptune's equator. Evolutionists usually assume that an elliptical orbit is a sign of the object being captured. Retrograde orbital motion also is taken to imply capture. But, circular motion appears to agree with the belief that the planets and moons formed from one spinning cloud (the Nebula Hypothesis). In the case of these two moons, you find all these in one place.

It is impossible for a moon to be captured into a circular orbit, like Triton's, since the speed must be exactly matched to the distance. Design is a reasonable alternative to capture in such a case. It is possible, however, that Nereid could actually be a captured object, judging from it long narrow orbit. One planetary scientist, David Morrison, wrote, "This system is distinctly peculiar, although there is no consensus among scientists as to how it might have originated."

There are special moons in the solar system that are very unique and very interesting. Io is one of these and is found at Jupiter. Three scientists wrote before Voyager got to Jupiter that Io could have active volcanoes, volcanoes that could erupt today. This was found to be true when scientists first saw the Voyager pictures. Several volcanoes were discovered in the act of erupting while the Voyager spacecrafts were there. The heat output of the volcanoes and other properties of the surface were also measured by the Voyager spacecraft. The heat given off by Io's volcanoes is about 60 million million Watts! This is equivalent to 60 million nuclear power plants. This is so much heat that scientists are having difficulty explaining it, even with all they have learned about it. Io has no craters because the surface is not completely solid and craters are quickly covered over by the sulfur compounds that come out of the volcanoes. The temperature on Io's surface ranges from -145C to over 300C in the day. The volcanic vents themselves are the "hot spots." Sulfur compounds can look white, yellow, orange, or black, depending on their temperature. This is why the surface of Io looks as it does.

Another special moon is Titan, the large moon of Saturn. Saturn has 23 known moons and could have even more. All of Saturn's moons are small except for Titan, which is 5,140 kilometers in diameter (how big is this in miles?). Titan is unique in the solar system because it is the only moon known to have a thick atmosphere. Titan's atmosphere is about 1.5 times as thick or dense as earth's atmosphere. Like earth, the most abundant gas in Titan's atmosphere is Nitrogen, about 94 percent. Titan also has Helium, methane, ethane, and other organic gases that are carbon compounds. Methane is the primary gas in the "natural gas" used in homes on earth.

Saturn has several other unique moons such as Iapetus, Tethys, Dione, and Phoebe. Iapetus and Phoebe have orbits that are very inclined, compared to Saturn's equator. Phoebe was the first moon discovered to be travelling retrograde (left-handed) around its planet. Even more interesting is that Phoebe rotates prograde or right-handed! It is the only known case of an object that spins one way and travels the other. Iapetus has a large dark spot on the side of it facing its direction of motion.

Dione also has a dark spot on one side, but it is opposite that of Iapetus. On Dione, the spot is on the trailing side. You see, most of the moons in the solar system rotate at a speed so that the time for them to spin once equals the time for them to make one orbit. This is called synchronous rotation and is why our Moon always keeps the same side facing the Earth. Dione has what is sometimes called a companion moon that shares the same orbit. It is called Helene and always makes a 60 angle with Dione. Saturn's moon Tethys has two companion moons, called Calypso and Telesto. Again, these three moons are 60 apart in angle. [A good project would be to draw this using a ruler and protractor.]

cont'd on page six

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Six

Most of the moons of the solar system are at Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus (see Table 1). The moons of Jupiter seem to be part water ice, and part rock, with some other materials in smaller amounts. The moons of Saturn are made mostly of water ice, but probably have a rocky core.

The largest moon in the solar system is Ganymede; it is 5260 kilometers in diameter, making it even larger than the planet Mercury! Ganymede has a very large dark spot called the Galileo Regio, which is 3200 kilometers in diameter. Ganymede is also famous for its strange grooved terrain, giving it the nickname the "groovy moon." At Neptune, the moon Triton was found to have a great deal of Nitrogen and Methane ice on its surface. It has to be extremely cold for these two materials to be solid.

There is evidence of volcanism on various moons, but with different materials than the molten rock we see on Earth from volcanoes. On Europa (Jupiter) water is probably the volcanic material but at Triton (Neptune) the volcanic material would be Nitrogen probably. Volcanic material on our Moon and Mars seem to be very similar to lava and basalt rock that comes from earth's volcanoes.

The strangest moon in the solar system is Miranda, one of Uranus' moons. Miranda is a small moon and scientists didn't really want to even study it with Voyager. They wanted to get the really detailed photos of some of Uranus' larger moons. Scientists assuming evolution and an old age for things expect more interesting geology, more volcanism, and more surface features on a large moon. Small moons give off heat more rapidly than large ones. This is why Miranda was such a surprise. If it were 4.6 billion years old and formed from a collapsing cloud, it should not be so interesting.

At Miranda Voyager photographed many types of strange surface features. One of the NASA scientists said "if you can imagine taking all the bizarre geologic forms in the solar system and putting them on one object, you've got it in front of you." Miranda has a cliff face, for instance, which is nearly 10 miles high. The most famous feature is something called "the chevron" which looks like a giant white check mark! Scientists apparently have no clue how to explain it. Two well-known planetary scientists (see reference 13) recently wrote the following about this mysterious check mark: "From a distance, it looked as though some celestial giant had painted a big white check mark on its surface, as if to say, 'Here's the answer!'" It has been suggested that Miranda (the Mangled Moon or the Quilted Moon) is an object that went through a collision. The idea is that it broke apart and pulled back together and rounded itself into a sphere again. To the author, believing in a "celestial giant" seems more reasonable. But the author would call him God. There is such a variety of strange and different "worlds" in our solar system it will give scientists much to learn for many years to come.

Perhaps the most direct evidence of catastrophe in the Solar System, however, is in the craters. Planets and moons in all regions of the Solar System bear the marks of being heavily bombarded by meteorites. Evolutionists all agree that there was a period of heavy cratering in the past, with much more frequent impacts than today. Evolutionists believe it was due to debris leftover from the formation of the planets, which would be swept up by the planets.

Before going on, the reader should understand the difference between a meteor, a meteoroid, and a meteorite. A meteor is an object that is falling through the atmosphere but which does not stay in tact long enough to make it to the ground. A meteoroid is an object on its way to hitting the earth (or other planet, etc.) before it reaches the earth. So meteoroids are out in space. Meteorites are objects that survive the trip through the atmosphere without completely "burning up," and reach the ground. Meteor showers occur at certain known times of the year because there are small objects scattered along the orbits of some asteroids and some comets. When the earth crosses one of these orbits, it sweeps up some of these objects and we see them glow as they fall through our atmosphere. What really happens when they "burn up" is that they become so hot that the solid matter in them is vaporized (turned into a gas). Then, the matter in the meteor would eventually fall to the surface as microscopic dust particles, which look like tiny balls.

Craters

Much can be learned about a planet or moon by studying its craters. Three important observations are that 1) there are large craters nearly everywhere in the Solar System, 2) there are many of them, and 3) there are sometimes more craters on one part of the surface than on another.

Considering the large craters in the Solar System let us define "large" as large compared to the size of the planet or moon they are found on. Beginning at Mercury, there is a very large impact area called the Caloris Basin which is 839 miles in diameter. Impact areas are recognized mainly by looking for circular features coupled with other surface evidence of material somehow moved or altered by the explosion. On Venus, craters are not very numerous, apparently because there is much volcanic activity which has covered or destroyed craters. Venus does have a large crater called Mead, which is 171 miles across. Mercury and our own Moon are nearly saturated with craters. Our Moon has several large impact areas, the largest of which is the Orientale Basin which has three concentric rings and is 559 miles across.

On Mars, there often seems to be very ancient large craters which were filled in by lava, followed by other craters which formed later. Mars has at least two very large impact areas, including Hellas and Argyre, which are 1,200 miles and 550 miles in diameter, respectively.(12) In some areas there seems to be five concentric rings of mountains. These large basins are usually quite flat in the center, with fresher craters on top of older craters. There are also craters volcanic in origin on Mars, which have different features than impact craters. Volcanism has formed a number of features on Mars that are enormous in size, such as especially the massive volcano Olympus Mons and the Valles Marineris canyon system. Valles Marineris is roughly 10 times the size of Arizona's Grand Canyon. Olympus Mons is about three times the height of Mt. Everest, the tallest mountaiin on earth. Almost the entire northern hemisphere of Mars has been covered with lava. The southern hemisphere, however, shows more craters than the northern hemisphere.

In the outer solar system, the moons also have lots of craters but have fewer large craters. Sometimes ice or volcanic flows have covered or destroyed them apparently. Jupiter's moon Callisto (which is nearly 3,000 miles in diameter) possesses a very large multi-ringed basin called Valhalla, which is over 1,800 miles in diameter. Valhalla is not actually a crater, but it is an impact site. At Saturn, Mimas (242 mile diameter) has the crater Herschel, which is 81 miles in diameter. Tethys at Saturn (650 miles diameter) has a large crater named Odysseus about 250 miles in diameter on one side and almost on the opposite side is a huge canyon, the Ithaca Chasma, which is 621 miles long and 62 miles wide! Clearly there have been many very powerful impacts throughout the Solar System.

cont'd on page seven

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Seven

Also at Saturn, Enceladus is one of several moons whose surface is almost completely water ice. Enceladus has the brightest surface known in the solar system; its surface is very white and clean looking water ice. Enceladus and some other moons were found to be much more active geologically than expected based on the assumption of an old Solar System. (This was especially true of Miranda at Uranus, which has many bizarre geologic features.(13)) Enceladus has many craters around its north pole but yet the remainder of its surface is largely quite smooth. This is awkward to explain from evolutionary assumptions. Normally scientists interpret a smooth surface to be young and a highly cratered surface to be old--but Enceladus has both. A simpler explanation would be that Enceladus is young and was struck by a large number of objects in a short time, which came from above its north pole, probably from outside the solar system.

Enceladus is one striking example of asymmetrical crater distribution--more numerous craters over certain parts of the surface. One would expect a 4.6 billion year old planet or moon to have a surface completely saturated with craters. Although volcanic activity can cover them, craters are often found to not be evenly distributed over the surface. The Mariner spacecraft found this true for Mercury, which has more craters in the southern hemisphere and for certain latitudes. In the outer solar system there seems to be more craters around the North poles of objects, but in the inner solar system, such as on our Moon, the Southern pole has more craters than the Northern pole, at least for the large impacts. (It should be noted that about 65 percent of Mercury's surface has never been seen to date.) Our Moon's near side has greater numbers of craters at the equator than near the poles.

This pattern could agree with the hypothesis that a large cloud of solid debris passed through our Solar System in the past. A debris cloud approaching from the northern polar direction in the outer solar system, for instance, might also produce craters on the southern poles of bodies in the inner solar system from objects being captured by planets into various unstable orbits. This debris cloud model could explain how there could be a large number of craters in a short time in a young solar system. A major collision in the inner solar system could also scatter objects that could cause craters across the solar system for years.
 

Origin of the Solar System-Two Evolutionist Views

Today, the accepted view of the origin of the Solar System is formally called the Modified Nebula Hypothesis. This evolutionary view begins with a cloud or nebula of gas and dust, including some elements believed to come from supernovae explosions of nearby stars. It is believed that as the material in the cloud cooled it would contract. Because of turbulence in the original nebula the portion which became our Solar System was spinning in the right-handed sense. The spinning cloud would naturally pull into a flat sheet and then into the Sun and planets. In this scenario, most of the mass and angular momentum (related to speed of rotation) would have to be in the Sun, which would then spin rapidly. But in fact, the Sun spins slowly, with a rotation period of 24 days, 16 hours. As a result, most of the angular momentum in the whole system is in the motion of the planets, exactly opposite the expected pattern. Also, the Sun itself is tilted 7 compared to the earth's orbit (the ecliptic). This tilt of the Sun does not fit the Nebula hypothesis well.

The Modified Nebula Hypothesis says that after the initial formation of the planets, there was a time of great heating that melted the planets enough to allow the matter to separate into layers inside planets. Also, there would be much volcanism at this time. Modern theories on the history of our Sun are also included in this view to avoid certain problems. Another problem is the fact that three planets spin in the backwards or retrograde sense, compared to the other planets--Venus, Uranus, and Pluto. Furthermore, six moons are known to orbit retrograde around the planet, disagreeing with the prediction of this view. The distribution of certain elements and radioactive elements across the System does not fit the pattern predicted by this model, and the moons were not found to be geologically inactive as this model implies. There are other problems with this view prompting some scientists to turn to a more catastrophic view.

A new model called the Capture Theory has been proposed to deal with some of these difficulties.(14) In this view, our Sun formed much as above but with no planets. Then a passing "protostar," while still a loose ball of gas, passed close to our Sun and a filament of matter was pulled off the protostar. A cloud of matter then surrounded our Sun which came from the protostar. It is believed that such a filament would pull together into perhaps six segments. These segments would further condense into six planets, which would initially all be in highly elliptical orbits. The two innermost planets are referred to as "A" and "B." These two planets later collided and three of the fragments became Mercury, Venus, and Earth. Our Moon and Mars are believed, by this view, to have been former moons of planets A and B, which no longer exist.

The Capture model relies on a long sequence of very unlikely events, which do not explain the predictable orderly patterns of our Solar System. Some of the problems of this view relate to the matter of how the shapes of large collision fragments would become rounded into spheres and how elliptical orbits would round into circles. Calculations of the time required for the rounding of orbits in a resisting cloud (resisting motion) give figures of 100,000 to 6 million years, depending on various factors.(15) If the Solar System is less than 10,000 years in age there would probably not be enough time for the rounding of orbits or of shapes. Also, computer calculations have shown that a filament of material drawn off a protostar could not coalesce into planets, but would disperse into space.(16)
 
Conclusion

Creationists are working on developing a different view of the history of the System than evolutionary planetary scientists. Creationists believe the solar system to be young. The varied features found on planets and moons, the large craters, and the motions of the assorted objects give us two characteristics to look for--design and catastrophe. A major catastrophe affecting most of the Solar System is a necessity in the author's opinion, if one insists on the Solar System being less than 10,000 years in age. The break up of a planet in the asteroid region and the suggestion that a debris cloud passed through our System in the past are both worth serious consideration. There may be other possible catastrophes not discussed in this paper.

As creationists work on the catastrophe question, the age of the Solar System is an important question not discussed in this paper. The author and others are currently studying evidence for a young solar system. In many cases planets and moons were found to have more energy geologically, or in gas temperatures, or in wind speeds than was expected. These could imply a young age, since in a young system that has had less time to "run down," higher energy is not too surprising. Creationists have frequently written about the influx of cosmic dust as an evidence for youth.

Regardless of how successful scientists may be in explaining the origin of the Solar System, the relevance of it is in considering the greatness of the God who made it all. He is worthy of our worship.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Biblical Approach to Astronomy,

Part 1: Biblical Presuppositions and Cosmology

Wayne Spencer

There are many fundamental questions about astronomy that need to be answered from a young age creation viewpoint. There is a need to bring the Bible to bear on some of these questions. But, in trying to answer scientific questions using Scripture there is great danger of making interpretational errors. A number of the conflicts between scientists and Bible scholars, or between creationists and evolutionists, have been caused by incorrect interpretation of the Bible. Thus it is important to clarify how much we can learn about astronomy from Scripture. The Biblical issues related to astronomy must be addressed before there can be definitive answers to some of the scientific questions. In the days of Galileo this problem became an issue of great historical importance (especially around year 1633). The Catholic church had sanctioned the Ptolemaic view of the universe, which held that Earth was in the center of the universe and the Sun and planets orbited around it. But, the Copernican view (later called heliocentrism, holding that Earth orbited the Sun) was new in Galileo's day. Galileo was Catholic and the Catholic church was not only a very powerful cultural force but it was also considered the seat of academic pursuits and it funded scientific research. Galileo was threatened with death at the stake by the Catholic Church unless he recanted his view that the Earth was moving around the Sun and that the Earth was not in the center of the universe. Galileo recanted and spent the rest of his life confined and alone under house arrest.

The whole Ptolemaic vs Copernican controversy came about because the Catholic church did not interpret Scripture correctly. There may have been some scholars at the time who would have said otherwise, but the view that the Sun moved rather than the Earth was apparently entrenched in Galileo's time in the thought of many Christians and Catholics. In addition, the intuitive ideas about motion that most people had were reinforced by the Ptolemaic model.

The old Ptolemaic system and variations of it are referred to as Geocentrism. Even today there continue to be some Christian groups who hold that the Earth does not orbit the Sun. The modern form of this concept is referred to as Geocentricity.1 Geocentricity is not the same model as the old Geocentrism. However, believers who hold to Geocentricity today continue to make interpretational errors that lead to their views. Geocentricity believers today are sincere Christians as far as I know. There are two organizations today that promote Geocentricity. One group believes the Earth rotates, the other believes it does not rotate. They hold very strongly to the inerrancy of the Bible, which I applaud them for. Occassionally creationist publications will address the question of Geocentricity. However, to date these creation articles have mainly attempted to address scientific problems with Geocentricity. To me, the important problem with Geocentricity and the older Geocentrism is that they do not follow sound methods of Biblical interpretation.

Geocentricity believers also as far as I can tell always hold to a strict "King James only" view of the Bible. So they would reject other modern translations. Because they rely on the exact words and phrases in the King James for their view, they tend to come to a forced unnatural interpretation of certain details. Remember it is not any of our modern English translations which are inerrant, but it was the original autographs penned in the hand of the Biblical writers that were inerrant. This is one reason we should use more than one translation in our personal study.

The strict "King James only" view of the Bible does not reflect sound scholarship. Other more modern translations are not perfect either, but relying exclusively on only one translation while disregarding others tends to lead to mistakes in interpreting Scripture. The English language has changed significantly since the King James Bible was translated in year 1611. Also, many manuscripts of Biblical texts in their original languages have been found since 1611, including the Dead Sea Scrolls for example. These manuscripts allow scholars to have more confidence about what the Biblical text says. Furthermore, much has been learned since 1611 from archeological and linguistic scholarship that has bearing on Biblical translation. A number of the arguments Geocentricity believers use hinge on verses in the King James that are very likely not translated well. The King James Bible is still a good translation for many uses, if you understand some of its limitations as a translation and enjoy its language style. But most Christians who hold to a strict King James view have no idea of the interpretational difficulties it causes them. Enjoying the language style and sound of the King James does not make a person knowledgable enough to adequately deal with the translational issues with it. This does not mean we should not use the King James at all, but for in-depth study other translations and reference tools should be used.

Some verses used in support of Geocentrism and Geocentricity include for example Psalm 93:1, Ps. 104:5, Ps. 119:90, and Joshua 10:12-14. Geocentricity believers today reject the hermeneutical principle of phenomenological language (sometimes also referred to as "observational" or "anthropomorphic" language).2 This is the principle that events are described as they were seen and experienced by the people involved. Thus, when the long day of Joshua is described it is only telling how Joshua saw and experienced the miracle, not giving a scientific description of what actually took place. Geocentricity believers would argue that this would mean God would be revealing an untruth in His word, something that God knew was not really accurate.

I would think of it more in terms of God using the language skills and understanding of the individual He revealed His word to. There is nothing untrue about a description of what the long day of Joshua was like to experience, which is what we have in Joshua 10. God did not intend to describe the actual mechanical or scientific aspects of what took place. Scripture is not written from that perspective. We simply do not know exactly how God made the Sun "stand still" for Joshua's battle. God did not tell us. But the fact that God did not tell us does not mean it was not historical, or that it is a figurative story. We should still praise God for the miracle of it.

Thus, there is no challenge to Biblical inerrancy in the heliocentric view of the solar system, in which the Earth orbits the Sun. There was therefore no reason at all for the Catholic church to be threatened or concerned when a scientist like Galileo argued for a Sun-centered view. The Bible does not address the question of whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa. It is sad that at that time in history, the church did not have a better understanding of how to interpret the Bible. The heliocentric view eventually won out over the Ptolemaic view after many years of debate. You may be able to say God used experimental science in the Copernican debate to correct the overly simplistic assumptions made by the Church about Earth's place in the universe.

The unfortunate result of the Copernican revolution was that the Bible began to be discounted in terms of its authority and historical reliability. As science prospered in the 1600's and 1700's the Bible was no longer taken to be authoritative, in matters that pertained to science. In time, science came to have more authority in western culture than the Bible. Thus there came to be a concept eventually in society that the Bible only speaks to personal, spiritual, and moral issues but not to objective truth such as in history and science. This is not how things should be because God's word speaks with equal authority in everything it addresses.

cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

The Bible makes a number references to the stars and the universe. Often it teaches significant things about God from these passages. There are also some ways in which these passages confirm certain concepts in astronomy. It is important that we think Biblically as Christians, so that we can evaluate ideas we are exposed to from science and so that we can answer these ideas with our children or in speaking with others around us. Active leading Creationists still do not have a consensus on a number of basic questions about astronomy. Thus there is a need to apply Scripture to lay the foundation for further creation research.

The Bible affirms God's knowledge of the stars and His sovereignty over them. The Apostle Paul mentioned the stars in I Corinthians 15:41 for instance, saying that "star differs from star in splendor (NIV)." This implies that stars are not all alike. Today we know from astronomical research that there are great variations in the properties of stars. Psalm 147:4 is also interesting regarding stars. The NIV Bible says "He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name." This is amazing. Scientists do not have names for all the stars, they only name some of them and number the rest according to 2 or 3 different classification systems. But God has names for them all! In the NAS Bible it says "He counts the number of the stars." Note the use of present tense here. The Brenton English translation of the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament says "He numbers the multitudes of stars." This Psalm as well as a similar verse in Isaiah 40:26 seem to indicate there is an ongoing tracking of the number of stars (by God) that has continued throughout history to the present. This could imply the number of stars has not been constant since Creation. Today we know that stars have an end to their existence and most astronomers believe stars can form today under the proper conditions. Whether stars form today is a question creationists still debate. But the ideas that stars are not all alike, they change, and they have an end to their existence are very consistent with modern astronomy.

Stars can go through various stages, though if the universe is only 6 to 8 thousand years old there may not have been time for most of them to change much. The changes in a star that naturally take place as it uses up its "fuel" is called Stellar Evolution by astronomers. Note that this is a use of the word "evolution" that has nothing to do with origins, except for how it is limited by a young universe less than 10,000 years in age. So, Stellar Evolution might be better called Stellar Aging. There is nothing contrary to Stellar Evolution or Stellar Aging in the Bible. In Part 2 of this series, we will look at how Intelligent Design is evident in astronomy.



A Biblical Approach to Astronomy,

Part 2: Intelligent Design of the Universe
It is important to clarify how much we can learn about astronomy from Scripture. Before there can be definitive answers to  scientific questions from a young age creation viewpoint, it is important to clarify the limits of what Scripture does and does not tell us about astronomy.  There are a number of issues in astronomy in which there is a need for creative original thinking from young age creationists.  In the light of Romans 1:18-20, intelligent design must have relevance to astronomy.   Much of astronomy tends to be based on the assumption that the Big Bang model of the universe cannot be seriously questioned.  Even a number of arguments that the universe is designed by a Creator are (wrongly) based on the assumption of the Big Bang.  Young-age creationists, who have a commitment to the authority of Scripture need to carefully evaluate arguments from astronomical research.  It is easy to err in one of two ways in this endeavor.  Either we can allow our assumptions of what the Bible teaches to lead us astray in how we understand science, or we can allow our assumptions from science to lead us astray in how we understand the Bible.         

There are a number of references to the stars or astronomical phenomena in Scripture.  They generally emphasize God’s greatness and power.  Psalm 103:11 illustrates the magnitude of God’s love for us by the distances to the stars!  There are occasional references to constellations, and to God “stretching out the heavens” at creation (see Isaiah 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, or Jeremiah 10:12).  Isaiah 40:26 and Psalm 147:4 indicate God names all the stars (see Part 1 of this series).  Jeremiah 31:35-37 essentially says that man will never be able to measure the heavens.  Some of these statements raise difficult interpretational questions about how they should be understood.

For example, Isaiah 40:26 says God “brings out the starry host one by one and calls them each by name.  Because of his great power and mighty strength not one of them is missing.”  Should this be taken to mean that stars cannot “die” as astronomers say?  I would prefer to take it to mean nothing in the universe, including stars or galaxies, is outside of God’s control.  So, no astronomical object would cease to exist (such as a star exploding for instance) apart from God allowing it.

In Jer. 31:35-37 mentioned above, is Scripture somehow incorrect because astronomers have used various types of observational data to calculate distances to galaxies and other astronomical objects?  I don’t think so.  Every time man learns a way to extend his reach in terms of what we can see of the universe, there is always more out there.  We have no way of knowing how far the universe goes, we only know what we have measured.  There is even debate in astronomy sometimes about whether the universe has a finite “size” at all.  We know that we’ve detected various galaxies and other objects at great distance, but there is always more than we have measured.  Many things about astronomy should remind us of our human limitations and God’s infinite nature.


cont'd on page three

[Soldier4Christ]

Pagr Three

Our Place in the Universe

The second verse in the Bible begins by describing the unfinished condition of the Earth on the first day of the creation week.  Isaiah 45:18 says about the Earth, “he did not create it to be empty but formed it to be inhabited.”  Earth was made special to be the home for life, especially human life.  But it is not only the Earth that had to be made special in order for it to be a safe home for living things.  God’s intelligent design had to extend from the subatomic level within every atom to the largest scales of clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies.  Without God’s intelligent design on all these levels, we would not have a stable safe existence.  Earth is at the center of God’s attention in Scripture.  Genesis 1:16-17 include the stars in saying that astronomical objects were created “to give light on the Earth.”

In 1984 astronomer William Tift and colleagues published some observations about the redshifts of galaxies.  Redshifts occur when something, such as a galaxies’ motion, decreases the frequency and color of the light given off by the galaxy (or star).  These changes in the light are used to estimate the distances to galaxies and stars.  Tift’s observations were very controversial and took a long time for astronomers to accept.  The measurements showed redshift ratios did not take on just any values but  they concentrated around certain regularly spaced numbers.  His results implied there were regularly spaced walls of galaxies going out to great distances.3  Over the years this observation has been confirmed independently by other researchers and extended out to even billions of light-years distance by the Hubble Space Telescope.  In the Big Bang view of the origin of the universe, it is very awkward, perhaps impossible, to explain this.  But creationist physicist Dr. D. Russell Humphreys has published a recent paper showing that Big Bang scientists ignore or do not think of a simple explanation of the regularly spaced
galaxies.4

The regularly spaced galaxies shows an extremely large scale order in the universe.  Such a pattern cannot be an accident.  The best explanation is that galaxies were created in concentric shells that are equally spaced in all directions.  Our galaxy then would have to be very near the center of the shells, otherwise the walls of galaxies would not be equally spaced.  Note that this would not be the same as Geocentricity, which puts the Earth precisely at the center of the universe.  Rather the Earth would orbit our Sun and our Sun would orbit the center of the Milky Way galaxy.  The Milky Way galaxy would be divinely placed in or near the center of the universe.  Scripture does not explicitly tell us anything about where the center of the universe is in relation to us.  But, this finding certainly fits in nicely with the Bible’s emphasis on God’s focus of attention being our blue planet.

This finding from astronomical science is very important.  In Big Bang cosmology, where our existence is ultimately an accident resulting from natural forces, we could not have a special location in the universe.  Consider the following quote of Physicist Stephen Hawking from 1973:

     However we are not able to make
     cosmological models without some
     admixture of ideology.  In the earliest
     cosmologies, man placed himself
     in a commanding position at the centre
     of the universe.  Since the time of
     Copernicus we have been steadily
     demoted to a medium sized planet
     going round a medium sized star
     on the outer edge of a fairly average
     galaxy, which is itself simply one of a
     local group of galaxies.  Indeed we are
     now so democratic that we would not
     claim that our position in space is
     specially distinguished in any way.
     We shall, ... call this assumption the
     Copernican principle.5


But God was not democratic in creating the universe!  Also, God made mankind distinguished as being created in His image.  Man was made for a personal relationship with the infinite Creator of the universe.

There are a number of other scientific facts about where we are in the universe that are of special benefit to us.  In recent years some scientists have realized these things that show how really “fortunate” we are.  For instance, if our solar system were located near the center of our galaxy, we would be close to supernova explosions and possibly dangerously close to a Black Hole where radiation and other hazards could affect us.6

Our Sun orbits the center of the galaxy in a manner similar to Earth orbiting the Sun.  But, for the Sun (our star), there are many other stars in the same spiral arm our Sun is near.  Our Sun is believed to be located between two of the spiral arms, but it happens to move in synch with the spiral arms.6  This is good because if it were moving faster or slower than the arms, it would cross the arms and come close to other stars, which could cause various catastrophic events to happen.  Also, God has placed our solar system in the middle of the spiral arms.  This allows us to see both the dense part of the central region of the Milky Way, and also see out into distant space.  If we were near the center of the galaxy, we would not be able to see nearly as far into the universe because of all the obscuring gas and dust that would block our view. 

cont'd on page four

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Four

The Sun and the Earth

It is actually very significant that our star, the Sun, is an “average” star.  It is not too large or too hot.  It is not a variable star or part of a double or triple star system, which are quite common in the universe.  All these other types of stars would create dangers to living things.

Our planet Earth is obviously specially made for life.  This clear from the study of other planets and moons in our own solar system.  It is also shown by recent findings regarding planets orbiting other stars.  Water is very necessary for life in many ways and Earth is the only body we know of that is able to have liquid water on its surface.  Scientists debate whether Mars may have had liquid water in the past, but Mars is not nearly so comfortable an environment for life as Earth.

Earth has enough mass to hold gases such as carbon dioxide and oxygen in an atmosphere so they do not escape into space.  Earth’s distance from the Sun is in the right range to make it’s temperatures suitable for life.  Also, if Earth were too close to the Sun, such as like Mercury for instance, it would be tidally locked so that the same side always faced the Sun.  This would severely restrict life or make life impossible.  Earth’s Moon has a purpose as well.  The tides, caused by the Moon’s pull on the Earth, cause the oceans to be essentially stirred and this has many benefits to sea life and to us.  Earth’s tilt is also very important and the Moon helps stabilize Earth’s tilt.  The seasons are due to Earth’s tilt (23.5°).  If Earth had no tilt it would cause ice to accumulate at the poles and probably make much of the Earth too dry.  If Earth had too much tilt, the temperature extremes would be too great for us.       

Design, the Big Bang, and the Atom

We’ve seen how God has arranged our place in the universe and our place in the galaxy.  God has also intelligently engineered our star and our planet to give us a safe stable existence.  God’s intelligent design of the universe extends further, down to the level of fundamental physical constants and the properties of the atom itself.  A number of physicists and astronomers in recent years have written about the many characteristics of the atom and the fundamental forces of nature that have “turned out just right” to allow for life.  Some of these scientists argue that the properties of the universe and the atom point to an intelligent Creator.  Some of these scientists are also Christians.  However, usually these arguments for design are put into the context of the Big Bang cosmology.  Thus statements will be made to the effect that God controlled the Big Bang, especially in its early fractions of a second, so that the universe would turn out as we find it today.

Ian Barbour is considered a top scholar on the issue of the relationship between religion and science.  He lists three things as examples of this so-called “fine-tuning” of the universe.7  The first point he makes is about what he calls the expansion rate of the universe.  It has been said that if the expansion rate of the universe were smaller by even a minute fraction, it would recollapse and nothing would form.  If it expanded too fast then the gases would be moving too fast for any stars or planets to pull together.

This argument presumes the Big Bang.  As we will see more later in this series, the Big Bang does not agree with the Bible and has scientific problems as well.  Thus, the “expansion rate” rather than being an argument for intelligent design, is actually an indication that the Big Bang would not work.  The expansion of the universe in the Big Bang requires a very special rate to work that there is no physical explanation for a process that would cause the rate to be just right.  Yet, scientists either just view this as an insignificant curiosity or they ignore the conflicts with the Bible and suppose that God used the Big Bang.  Neither way of thinking is Biblical.     

Barbour also refers to the Particle/Antiparticle ratio.  This is another problem with the Big Bang.  The Big Bang should produce equal quantities of matter particles and antimatter particles, such as protons and antiprotons, electrons and positrons, and neutrons and antineutrons.  Antimatter particles and the corresponding matter particles completely annihilate each other on contact, giving off radiation.  The problem is why does the universe have almost no antimatter when the Big Bang would produce both types of matter?  Physicists believe that there was just one extra proton (regular matter) for every billion antiprotons.  The same thing would have had to happen for neutrons and electrons in order for atoms to be able to form.  Again, rather than being an argument for design or being just a curiosity, this is a problem with Big Bang theory.

However, Barbour also refers to the formation of the elements as one of the “fine-tuned phenomena.”  There is a force within the nucleus of the atom known as the strong nuclear force.  It essentially holds the nucleus of the atom together.  If the nuclear force were slightly stronger or weaker some elements in the periodic table could not exist.  Carbon, which life and our bodies depend on so much, might not be stable if the nuclear force were slightly stronger.  This I think is a valid evidence of intelligent design, though it is not about the formation of the elements, but about their stability and their beneficial properties.  Paul Davies is an Australian professor of Mathematical Physics.  He makes an interesting observation about the order in the universe.  “It is particularly striking how processes on a microscopic scale–say, in nuclear physics–seem to be fine-tuned to produce interesting and varied effects on a much larger scale–for example, in astrophysics.”8

This shows that God has thought through all the details from the subnuclear level to cosmological distance scales.  I will let God sum this up in His own words from Isaiah 44:24 (NIV):

    I am the LORD, who has made all things,
        who alone stretched out the heavens,
        who spread out the earth
        by myself.



References

   1. Bouw, Gerardus D., A Geocentricity Primer, published by Gerardus Bouw, 1999, 4527 Wetzel Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44109.
   2. Sproul, R. C., Knowing Scripture, InterVarsity Press, 1977, pp 73-74; also see Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 1999, p 696.
   3. Astronomy, "Sky Surveys Reveal Regularly Spaced Galaxies," June 1990, p 10; Tift, W. G. and Cocke, W. J., "Global Redshift Quatization," Astrophysical Journal, 287:492-502, 1984; Napier, W. M. and Guthrie, B. N. G., "Quantized redshifts: a status report, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 18(4):455-463, 1997.
   4. Humphreys, D. Russell, "Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, 'quantized' red shifts show," TJ, Vol. 16, Number 2, pp 95-104.
   5. Hawking, S. W. and Ellis, G. F. R., "The Large Scale Structure of Space Time," Cambridge University Press, p 134, 1973.
   6. Ward, Peter D. and Brownlee, Donald, Rare Earth, Copernicus, 2000.
   7. Barbour, Ian G., Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, HarperSanFrancisco, 1990, pp 204-205.
   8. Davies, Paul, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis For a Rational World, Simon & Shuster, 1992, p 196.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Biblical Approach to Astronomy, Part 3

The Big Bang Versus the Bible

          The idea that the universe expanded from a single point billions of years ago is now a deeply entrenched concept in astronomy. Though the term “the Big Bang” was originally a derogatory term for the concept, the name stuck. 

          In the Big Bang, the universe begins with what is called a singularity. It is believed that the fundamental forces switched on and fundamental particles formed in the initial moments. A very hot ball of energy and particles expanded outward from a point. This is sometimes described as an explosion, but technically the Big Bang is not an explosion. It is not that the matter exploded outward, rather the concept is that space itself expands outward, carrying the matter and energy with it.

          Though Big Bang theory does not include God creating, there have been many scientists who have tried to harmonize Big Bang theories with the Bible. To harmonize Big Bang theories with the Bible, it is the Bible that is reinterpreted to make it not contradict accepted ideas on the origin of the universe. In Part 2 of this series we looked at some problems with intelligent design arguments that are built on the assumption of the Big Bang.

          Though the Bible is not clear about many scientific details, it is clear that the creation account does not agree with the Big Bang. First of all, the Big Bang would have other stars forming before our Sun and so there would be stars before Earth. But the Bible indicates Earth was created even before our Sun or the stars. This implies there was some other point light source (likely supernatural) that made the day/night cycle possible for Earth on the first three days. Also, the Sun and stars were created on the same day in the creation week (Genesis 1:14-19).

          In Big Bang theory, everything forms by natural processes via known physical forces and effects. Supernatural creation is not involved, though some have essentially tried to add some supernatural to the theory to try and harmonize with the Bible. How does the Bible say creation took place? By what process did it happen, according to Scripture? Psalm 33 answers this clearly:

 

By the word of the LORD were

   the heavens made, their starry

   host by the breath of his mouth. . . .

Let all the earth fear the LORD;

   let all the people of the world

   revere him.

For he spoke, and it came to be;

   he commanded, and it stood firm.

                     Psalm 33:6, 8-9 NIV


          The God of the Bible does not need natural processes to create, though he can use natural processes for his purposes. Psalm 33 and many other statements in the Bible imply that things came into existence by command and on command. What God created was brought into existence immediately. Genesis 1:3 and indeed even the whole creation account makes this point.

God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (Gen. 1:3 NIV)

          You might say God created by “God’s will” and not necessarily by “command” in some cases. But there was no long period of time involved. There is no plausible place in the Bible to put long periods of millions or billions of years, either for the universe or the Earth. This does raise many scientific questions about astronomical processes. It is important to remember that the Bible describes things from the perspective of Earth, since Earth is the center of God’s attention. There could have been some natural processes involved that accompanied the miraculous processes of creation. But we must deal honestly with what Scripture tells us and interpret it properly in context. Then we should work within the framework implied by Scripture to deal with the scientific questions as best we can. If some questions do not have complete scientific answers, that should not be threatening to us because we know God acted supernaturally. However, on issues in which Scripture is not clear, potential scientific answers should be fully explored before we assume miraculous intervention. Our study of the universe should motivate us to want to know and worship God more and give us greater confidence in His word. It can also help us to communicate our faith to others.

          There are a number of individuals who are astronomers or physicists who have suggested that the Bible agrees with the Big Bang. Though not always the case, there is a tendency for people with a scientific background hold to a view of Genesis 1 that is called the Day-Age Theory. On the other hand, individuals with theological or seminary training tend to hold to another view of Genesis 1 called the Gap Theory, which puts a long period of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

          The Day-Age Theory holds that the days described in the Creation account of Genesis 1 are each long periods of time. People of the Day-Age view usually also hold that the seventh day of the Creation week is a “continuing day” of several thousand years in length. Thus by this idea we are still in the seventh day even now. The Creation days by this view are considered to be overlapping periods of time. The overlap is necessary in this view to attempt to deal with how the order of events in Genesis 1 contradicts the order of events from the Big Bang and evolution. One well known proponent of the Day-Age Theory today is Hugh Ross, a Christian astronomer with a ministry called Reasons to Believe.

          There are a number problems with both the Day-Age Theory and the Gap Theory, as interpretations of Genesis. Even if Genesis chapter 1 is not clear enough, Exodus 20:11 is unmistakably clear, saying essentially that everything was created in six days. There are several indications in Genesis 1 that the Creation days are literal days. The reference to “and there was evening and morning” and to a numerical adjective with the word “day” clearly point to the days being literal. Also, if the days were long periods of time, how would plants survive from day three to day four, when the Sun is first mentioned? If we can take the term for “day” in Genesis 1 as a long period of time, then it would be possible to take the New Testament the same way and argue that Jesus Christ had not yet risen from the dead since the “three days” he was in the tomb would not yet be completed. This is absurd.

What should Christians think?

          When Genesis is not interpreted properly, that can open the door to rejecting other important things in the Bible. Many say that you can be a Christian and believe the Big Bang, or believe in evolution. Henry Morris once made a striking comment about this in a book that is now out of print: “Christians can be inconsistent and illogical about many things, but that doesn’t make them right.” (From the book King of Creation, 1980, p 84.)

          John Polkinghorne is a British theoretical physicist formerly at the Queens College at Cambridge and is also an ordained minister in the Church of England. He is also a member of the Royal Society of London, a very elite association of scientists hundreds of years old. Polkinghorne is well-known for his writings on the relationship between science and religion. Polkinghorne says there is no conflict between Christianity and the Big Bang. He wrote:


cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

As far as Christianity is concerned

     two things need to be said. The first

     is that the Christian is not committed

     to believe in the literal truth of

     every miraculous event recorded in

     the Bible. An understanding of the

     role of myth and legend enables us

     to accept some stories as just

     that, pictorially valuable but not

     historically accurate.

          I have to disagree with Polkinghorne. If we cannot trust all of the Bible, including the miracles, how can we really trust any of it and base our lives on it? It is not “putting God in a box,” as some suggest, to believe in six literal days and a young universe. It is taking God at his word, and that is the calling of every Christian. But there are limits to what science can tell us. Where science ends, or where science is not perfect, we must put our trust in the word of the God who was there in the beginning and who has spoken to us in the Bible. Reinterpreting the scientific data from a creation point of view requires some very creative thinking. The solutions to the scientific issues may be surprising even to creationists. But compromising on our approach to Scripture is not an option.







A Biblical Approach to Astronomy, Part 4

The Age of the Universe and God’s Nature


          The Bible says in Exodus 20:11 that everything in the heavens, the Earth, and the sea were created within the six days of the Creation week. The Creation account implies that objects in outer space were created on the fourth day. This makes the universe, our solar system, and the Earth all of essentially the same age, which from Biblical considerations would be about 6,000 to 8,000 years. This goes radically against accepted principles in astronomy today, which hold that Earth is about 4.6 Billion years of age and the Universe is about 15 Billion years of age.

          There are many confirmations of the Bible’s account of history from archeology and science, but in astronomy there are questions we do not have complete answers to. The question of the age of the Earth has been addressed extensively by young-age creationists. Problems with radiometric dating (such as Carbon-14 dating or Potassium-Argon dating), which is the primary basis for arguing for an old Earth, have been documented. Geological evidences of a Young Earth have also been documented by creationists. Creationists have published a number of works showing how geological facts can be reinterpreted from a young-age viewpoint. All of this is easier to do in a sense for geological studies of the Earth than for issues in astronomy because for Earth we have more direct and more complete data. Being on Earth, we can collect samples and do other types of direct measurements that help answer origins questions.

Our Limitations

          In astronomy, we have to get data more indirectly since we cannot travel to distant stars or galaxies. We can send unmanned spacecraft to other planets in our solar system, so in solar system studies we have some data collected directly (such as moon rocks) and the rest is collected indirectly by remote sensing technology. Remote sensing data includes pictures, radar surface mapping, spectra of light reflected off object surfaces, magnetic measurements, etc. In solar system studies there are some indications of a young age. But in the solar system, there is more of an emphasis on remote sensing data.

          Outside our solar system, the only source of information we have is the light and other radiation that we receive from space. The entire electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves, to X-rays, to visible light, to infrared, to gamma rays, is all measured by astronomers and physicists. Much can be learned from the electromagnetic spectrum from stars and galaxies. The light received from space can also be compared to radiations emitted by laboratory sources on Earth. This allows us to identify the elements present in a distant star, for example. But in astronomy, it is often not a simple thing to determine the meaning of what we see and measure. Thus, we should approach astronomy with a lot of humility, since it is easy to build a tall “house of cards” on assumptions that turn out to be wrong.

          I believe that where we have better and more complete data regarding the age of things, such as on Earth, we have better evidence for things being young as the Bible suggests. As we consider our solar system, there is evidence of the solar system being young, but it is not as clear as it is for Earth. I hope that the evidence will become more clear with more research. There are times when one can show that old age assumptions lead to problems with current non-creationist theories.

          For broader issues in astronomy, such as the age of galaxies and the age of the universe, I see the age evidence as unclear. I say this because we are still at an early stage in creationist astronomy where we are only beginning to work out some of the fundamental principles. I can point to evidence for the Earth being young, but it is difficult to point to specific examples that imply a young universe. In my view, this is due to two things primarily, first, the limited resources that young-age creationists have that has been put into working seriously on the technical issues. Secondly, because in astronomy young-age or old-age assumptions are often inherent in how the data is interpreted. The issue of the age of the universe is tangled into the interpretation of almost every piece of data.

          As Christians who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible I do not see how we can accept the concept of an old universe. It just does not agree with Genesis. There are some Christians who hold that the universe is old but the Earth is young. I do not believe this is a legitimate option either. So, for the universe, I believe the universe is young primarily because of my interpretation of Scripture. There have been some things put forward from creationists as evidences of a young universe. It is not the purpose of this article to address these arguments for a young universe. In general, I feel many of these arguments need to be researched better and brought up to date.

God’s involvement with His Creation

          Though modern science rejects the possibility of the supernatural, a Christian point of view must acknowledge it as possible. This raises questions about whether God’s supernatural creative work only took place during the creation week or whether it continues to the present in some sense. After Isaac Newton’s success in describing motion and gravity, the concept became accepted in some circles that the universe ran like a mechanical clock that was wound up in the beginning and needed no other input to continue running. This is not a Biblical concept and I doubt that Newton would have held this view.

          The Bible does acknowledge the existence of physical laws, but Scripture implies they are dependent laws. See Jeremiah 33:25 and Jer. 31:35-36. The physical laws are a normal mode of operation of things but they are somehow dependent on God. The universe depends on God to sustain and hold it together in an ongoing sense (see Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:17). Also, God can supercede physical laws anytime he has reason to. He is not limited by physical laws because He is not part of the physical universe; He is transcendant and omnipotent. The physical laws themselves exist by intelligent design and have come about by God’s command. God thus has complete authority and control, though nature seems to run with a very machine-like predictability. This predictability allows us to do experimental science and use our knowledge of nature for mankind’s benefit.

          We should bear in mind that when God intervened supernaturally at the time of creation, this could produce effects that we cannot explain by the laws of physics. There may be mysteries that are a result of God’s supernatural actions. We do not know for instance the exact initial conditions at the time of creation. Thus we do not know the exact composition of a star one minute after it was created. However we can measure the composition of a star using spectroscopy. In doing this, are we measuring its initial composition at the time of creation, its composition today, or of some time in-between? This is not a simple question. Yet this type of question comes up again and again in trying to understand many things in astronomy.

cont'd on page three

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Three

Starlight and the Age of the Universe

          The concept of a young universe as implied by the Bible has been challenged frequently by skeptics and individuals in science who believe evolution and the Big Bang. This challenge is put in one of two ways. One is to ask how Adam and Eve could see stars during the creation week when it takes from a few years to billions of years for light to reach Earth from outer space. Another way to present the issue is in terms of modern measurements made today. Astronomers measure changing processes in space and objects in motion. How can scientists today detect objects millions of light-years distant if the universe is only 6 or 8 thousand years old? Remember that one light-year is the distance that light travels in one year and the speed of light is over 186,000 miles per second.

          Young-age creationists have put forward several explanations for how we are able to see distant objects in a young universe. One argument, now over 20 years old, was that the distances to the stars and galaxies used by astronomers were not accurate, but were much too large. Today distances to objects in space are determined by a number of techniques. Though there are always uncertainties in measured distances, there is no way that distances can be off enough to explain the starlight issue.

          It has also been proposed that the speed of light was much much faster in the past than it is today (called “cdk”). Though this might answer the starlight issue in some ways, the implications of this in physics and astronomy are very problematic. This was proposed by Australian creationist Barry Setterfield first in 1987. After much discussion, most of the creationist community came to a consensus against the 1987 model. Setterfield then proposed a new reworked model of cdk in 2002-2003. Most creationists I know with backgrounds in physics do not believe this model is credible either. There are also Big Bang scientists, not Christians or creationists, who have proposed that light speed was higher in the past, in the early moments of the Big Bang. The idea of the decay of the speed of light continues to be very controversial. At this time, I do not consider it an option because the physics of it just doesn’t seem plausible. It is a very technical issue that will probably continue to be debated by creationists.

          Today there are two models for answering how we can see distant objects in a universe only thousands of years old which have become relatively well known. One is referred to as “Mature Creation” or “Appearance of Age” and the other involves an application of time dilation effects in General Relativity in a model from Dr. D. Russell Humphreys. General Relativity can be thought of as a theory about gravity and space that came from Albert Einstein. However, there are a number of possible mathematical approaches that can be used to apply General Relativity to theories about the universe.           The creation account in Genesis implies that God created many things mature and fully functional in the creation week. Thus, Adam and Eve would have looked like young adults when they were only a day old, for instance. This has been sometimes referred to as “Appearance of Age.” I prefer to call it “Virtual Age.” In relation to astronomy, it has been suggested God created the light waves stretched out from stars to Earth, at the time He created the stars themselves (maybe even before the stars were created). This would also make it necessary for God to create in the light waves all the variations and changes that would allow us on Earth to see events and processes in space using our telescopes.           This view has received a lot of criticism by some on the grounds that it is deceptive because it would make things appear as if there were objects or processes seen in space that do not actually exist. Or we might see evidence of events and processes that may not have really happened. I would say that for this view to be possible it simply cannot be deceptive. What we observe in space has to accurately represent real events, objects, and processes because God is not deceptive. This view requires some supernatural action by God in order to work and it has some implications that are difficult to accept from scientific considerations. But I would not rule it out as an option. However, I prefer a more scientific approach to the problem, if that is possible.

          In recent years an attempt at a scientific answer to the starlight question has come from creationist physicist Dr. D. Russell Humphreys. Dr. Humphreys published his cosmology model answering the starlight issue in the popular book, “Starlight and Time.” There has been a mixed acceptance of Humphreys model among creationists. Humphreys model uses principles of General Relativity and applies them to our universe in a way very different from Big Bang theories. He says the universe has a finite size and a center, which is different than Big Bang theory. The general idea is that in the beginning space was rapidly expanded as God stretched out the universe. While space was rapidly expanding, there was an effect on time. So during the expansion, many years of time would go by at the outer edge of the universe while time essentially stopped at Earth. Time would have stopped (or nearly stopped) at Earth because Earth was close to the center of the sphere of matter that made up the universe.

          With Humphrey’s cosmology, the farther away from Earth an object is, the more the time dilation effect. Time was only affected during the creation week while the universe expanded rapidly. The result is that measured from Earth today, objects at great distance would seem much older than objects at Earth. After the creation week, time proceeded normally everywhere. Humphrey’s model is still controversial and there could yet be refinements to details of how it works out. Some of the Humphrey’s mathematics received some criticism for a while but I feel he adequately answered those criticisms.

          Humphrey’s cosmology is a promising model for answering some tough questions in astronomy. At the present time, I feel it, or something similar to it, is the best answer we have to how we can see distant objects in a young universe. Further research can always change the picture as our understanding grows. In fact, in 2003 creationist physicist John Hartnett proposed an intriguing new model somewhat similar to Humphrey’s. There have been many exciting discoveries in astronomy in recent years. These discoveries tell us about what God made. We must hold onto our Biblical convictions and also deal honestly and carefully with the scientific evidence. We still have much to learn about doing this in the exciting field of astronomy.

A Correction Regarding Job 38:31

     In the article, “A Biblical Approach to Astronomy, Part 2" I referred briefly to Job 38:31.  I'm afraid I  must correct an error.  In the NIV, this verse says, “Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?”  I made the following statement in the above article which I now am convinced is not correct:

“This seems to accurately acknowledge the difference between a gravitationally bound star cluster and a constellation, whose stars are not gravitationally bound together.”     

     In a recent issue of the journal TJ, creationist physicist John Hartnett writes an excellent paper about the Pleiades cluster and this verse from Job (see Vol. 18, Number 2, 2004).  Though in the past it was believed that the Pleiades star cluster was gravitationally bound, modern astronomy  has shown it to be unbound.  The Pleiades cluster (which contains about 500 stars) is expanding, but it will not break up in the future as far as we can tell.  The stars in it are just near each other and moving in the same direction.  The Pleiades and some other constellations are mentioned in several passages in the Old Testament.

     The Orion nebula is found in the night sky in the constellation Orion.  This constellation is the familiar "bow-tie” like group of stars.  The Hubble Space Telescope discovered a number of stars in what is now known as the Orion Nebula Cluster, or ONC.  This is a cluster of about 1000 stars and research indicates it is gravitationally bound.  Hartnett points out that naturalistic theories from astronomers are currently not able to explain the origin of bound star clusters like this. 

     So, the Pleiades is actually technically unbound and there is a significant bound cluster in the Orion nebula. Thus the facts from astronomy do not support what I was implying.  I had read and heard differing opinions on the Pleiades cluster but I think Hartnett’s paper provides the proper documentation.

     John Hartnett in the above article also makes some Biblical arguments for Job 38:31 not addressing specifics about these star clusters.  This verse is apparently a difficult one to translate from the Hebrew.  The point of the verse in context is about God’s complete sovereignty.  Though I always understood this, I thought that it was also incidentally giving some astronomical information that Job would not have known.  Though I meant well, this was actually taking Scripture out of context in a minor way. 

cont'd on page four

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Four


References

Hartnett, John, The heavens declare a different story!, TJ 17(2) 2003 AIG, pp 94-97.

Hartnett, John, A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem, TJ 17(2) 2003 AIG, pp 98-102.
 

Hartnett, John, Pleiades and Orion: bound, unbound, or . . . ?, TJ 18(2) 2004 AIG, pp 44-48.

Humphreys, D. R., Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts show, TJ 16(2) 2002 AIG, pp 95-104.

Humphreys, D. R., Starlight and Time, Master Books, Colorado Springs, 1994.

Norman, T. And Setterfield, B., The atomic constants, light, and time, SRI International Invited Research Report, Menlo Park, 1986. 

[Soldier4Christ]

our solar system and its origin
wayne r. spencer



Knowledge of our solar system has grown exponentially in recent years.
Voyager, Clementine, Magellan, NEAR (Near Earth Asteroid Rendevous),
Galileo, Mars Pathfinder, and the Mars Global Surveyor. These are names
of NASA solar system missions over the past twenty years. Though not well
known, the European Space Agency (ESA) has made significant
contributions in solar system research over the past twenty years as well.
The ESA also has missions planned for upcoming months and years that
have great potential for significant scientific discoveries. The ESA mission
Giotto was the first to take close up photos of a comet; the Giotto
spacecraft flew by both comet Halley in 1986 and comet Grigg-Skjellerup
in 1992. ESA operates three different missions currently that study the
Sun and various solar phenomena that affect Earth. In 2005, after the
Cassini spacecraft arrives at Saturn, a special probe built by the ESA called
Huygens will be sent down into the atmosphere of SaturnÕs moon, Titan.
Other possible future ESA missions include a mission to Mars, a mission
to Mercury, one to the Moon to test a new solar-electric ion propulsion
system, and a mission to orbit and land on a comet. Great resources in
manpower and funding are required for all these missions, yet the science
gleaned from these missions is biased by evolutionary presuppositions.
However there are a few individuals with backgrounds in physics and
astronomy who are young-age creationists interested in rethinking solar
system issues from a creation perspective. What is a creation perspective
on the solar system?
In the Bible, Romans 1:20 indicates that GodÕs invisible qualities or
attributes are evident to all people in the way things have been made.
Much has been written regarding evidence for intelligent design in the
living world. The complexity and purpose evident in living things points to
an intelligent Creator. The attributes of the Creator are also evident from
the non-living world. GodÕs power, creativity, and purpose are evident in
our solar system. Our solar system and our home planet are made to give
us a safe stable existence. There has also been a great deal of research in
recent years on the topic of extrasolar planets Ð planets orbiting other
stars. Though a number of planets seem to exist around other stars, those
solar systems are usually very different from our own (Spencer, 2001). In
our solar system, not only has Earth been created so that it is an effective
habitat for life, but there are other advantages to us on Earth from the way
our solar system is arranged. For example, the size of our Moon and its
distance from Earth are just right to allow for total eclipses of the Sun
(Faulkner, 1998, p.23). Also, we now realize that Jupiter shields Earth
from impacts from comets and asteroids because of where it is placed in
our solar system.
Thus there are unique properties of our solar
system that are for our benefit. Isaiah 45:18 in
the NIV Bible says:

“for this is what the L O R D
says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made
the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be
e m p t y,
but formed it to be inhabited”.

The Creator-God is not limited to the familiar environment we take for
granted on Earth. He has made a variety in the planets and moons of our
solar system, not to speak of the many thousands of smaller objects such
as the asteroids, comets, and Kuiper Belt Objects found beyond Neptune.
There are great extremes of conditions on these objects and features that
have been very surprising to scientists. In todayÕs accepted evolutionary
approach to the origin of the solar system, all objects in the solar system
are believed to have originally come from one cloud of gas and debris.
Starting with this assumption leads to certain patterns being expected
by planetary scientists when various solar system objects are studied.
However, God is not limited to the naturalistic patterns predicted by
evolutionary scientists.There have been many surprises as solar system
missions have brought in the mountains of data. Many solar system origin
problems have been researched for many years and yet there is still not a
consensus on numerous issues, in spite of sophisticated modern methods.
In todayÕs accepted naturalistic view of the origin of our solar system,
supernatural creative activity by a Creator is not considered an option.
Known processes of gravity, magnetism, chemistry, radioactivity are the
primary processes involved in explaining how matter in a nebula in space
could pull together to form our Sun, the planets, and all other objects in
the solar system. This view is known as the Nebula Hypothesis. It is
generally a very old idea but today there are many additions and
modifications to the model to account for recent discoveries. Thus it
could be called the Modified Nebula Hypothesis. However, there are
some characteristics of solar system objects that do not lend well to
them forming from a cloud of gas and dust.
A large nebula as observed in space is generally quite hot, hot enough to
give off light, which is what allows us to see it. Such nebulae in space are
much larger than our solar system and they are generally believed to have
come from the explosion of stars (supernovae). As it
cools, gravity would cause the nebula to contract and
become more and more dense. In the Nebula
Hypothesis, the nebula that is believed to have
contracted to form our Sun is called the protosolar
nebula. Such a cloud is rotating prior to its collapse,
and as the cloud contracts by gravity, its spin would
accelerate just like the spin of an Olympic ice skater
pulling their arms in. As gravity continues to cause the
cloud to contract, it would become a spinning disk of gas
and dust. Matter is pulled to the centre and it is believed
the gas in the centre would become dense enough for
nuclear reactions to begin and then our Sun would begin
generating energy as a star. As gravity pulls matter
together, the gas begins to heat up, the rotation of the
disk accelerates and this begins to push the material
apart; magnetic forces can drive the material apart as
well. Thus, one scientist, H. Reeves, referred to these as
problems for explaining how the Sun and planets could form from the
nebula. Reeves summarized the problems saying, ÒThe clouds are too hot,
too magnetic, and they rotate too rapidlyÓ (Reeves, 1978, p.9). Many
computer simulations of such processes have been done by physicists
and astronomers. There are limitations of such models because the
simulations either do not start with conditions like real nebulae or they
do not model the entire process from a nebula in space to the complete
formation of the Sun and planets. In the Nebula model, the gas eventually
clears and you are left with a sheet of rocky and icy objects and dust. It is
believed the dust and larger objects would stick together as they collided
and this would lead to larger and larger objects forming over time. Large
objects formed in this way would eventually
become the planets. Though this type of scenario
is widely accepted by scientists, there are reasons
to suggest there is a limit to the size that objects
could become by this process. So there are still
unresolved issues about how planets could form
by natural processes.cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

What are some of the difficulties with the
Modified Nebula Hypothesis? One long-standing
problem is with angular momentum. Any object
in motion around the Sun has angular
momentum and the spin of the object itself gives
it additional angular momentum. If our Sun
formed according to the Nebula Hypothesis,
it would spin more and more rapidly as it
contracted and the result would be a very rapidly
spinning Sun. But, in our solar system we observe
that the Sun spins very slowly and the planets
move around the Sun relatively quickly. Our Sun
makes one rotation on its axis, measured at its
equator, in 24 days, 16 hours (Baugher, 1988,
p.415). This slow rotation means the Sun
possesses only about 2 percent of the total
angular momentum of the solar system
(Baugher, 1988, p.375). So the distribution
of angular momentum doesnÕt fit the Nebula
models well. In order to make it work, scientists
have suggested magnetic processes that would
slow down the Sun and accelerate the matter
that became the planets.


This is a very difficult
problem for solar
system theories. Since
this problem has been
worked on for years,
one would think that it
had been solved. But,
a well known solar
system scientist wrote
that, ÒThe ultimate
origin of the angular
momentum of the
solar system remains
obscureÓ (Taylor,
1992, p.53).
Other issues with the
Nebula concept have
arisen over what you could call ÔirregularÕ
properties of otherwise ÔregularÕ objects. In
the solar system there is a normal direction for
motion, which can be remembered by using the
right hand. With the right thumb pointing the
direction of the North Pole of the Earth, for
instance, the fingers of the right hand will curl in
the direction of EarthÕs spin. This is the normal
right-handed direction for both spins and orbital
motions in the solar system. This is referred to as
the prograde direction. Objects that either spin
or revolve around the Sun in the opposite
direction are referred to as moving retrograde.
The rotation of the initial nebula dictates that
the motions of all objects in the system would be
in the prograde direction. But not all objects in
the solar system move prograde. The planet
Venus spins retrograde at a relatively slow rate,
though its upper atmosphere spins very rapidly
around the planet. Most of the planets have
rotation axes that are not far from being
perpendicular to the plane of their orbit. But
Uranus and Pluto are exceptions as they both
are oriented essentially on their side. Then there
are many examples of moons in the solar system
where either the orbital motion around the
planet or the spin is retrograde. If an orbit is
unusually elliptical it is considered ÔirregularÕ,
as is an orbit where a moon moves retrograde
around the planet. Various catastrophic and
other scenarios have been suggested to
explain the many examples of ÔirregularÕ
motion.
Orbital properties do not always reflect
what planetary scientists assume from
origins models. Triton, one of NeptuneÕs
moons, has a very circular orbit, which is
considered very regular but Triton orbits
in the retrograde direction, which is
irregular. Because of this it is assumed
that Triton did not originate where it is
found now but was somehow captured by
Neptune. Captured objects however must
be captured into highly elliptical orbits. So,
this raises questions about Triton's origin
and history that have not been fully
answered. From a creation perspective,
Triton could have been created in a
circular retrograde orbit. From the point of
view of the Nebula Hypothesis, this is not
possible. At Jupiter many new small moons have
been discovered in the past few years due to new
observational techniques. Most of them orbit in
the retrograde direction and they tend to be
grouped in certain regions depending on their
orbit inclination and distance from Jupiter. This
suggests there may have been larger objects
orbiting Jupiter in the past that were broken
up by collisions (Sheppard and Jewitt, 2003,
pp.261-263).
Our solar system displays certain regular
patterns though some facts suggest catastrophic
events have altered what God originally created.
For example, there is a general tendency for
planets nearer to the Sun to be made of higher
density materials and planets farther from the
Sun to be of lower density, more volatile
substances. But, again, there are exceptions to
this rule, as shows. Saturn and Pluto do
not follow this pattern. Naturalistic nebula models for the origin of the
solar system treat this relationship as due to the higher temperatures
near the Sun than farther out, as the gas and dust in the disk was
beginning to form planets. However, seeing this pattern as being from
intelligent design is just as reasonable. The higher density, less volatile
elements are more appropriate for the region nearer the Sun where
temperatures are higher. If volatile gases, such as methane for example
were present on Mercury they would only escape into space anyway. Thus
there may be a design for stability in the density pattern. But God did not
follow this pattern in a rigid manner.

cont'd on page three

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Three

The surfaces of planets and moons in our solar system bear indications of
a violent history in many cases. Mars has a particularly dramatic
geological history apparently. Mars has remnants of very large volcanoes,
as well as large impact craters. There are also canyon systems, including
Valles Marineris, which is long enough to stretch all the way across the
continental United States. There seems to be indications of flooding in
the past on Mars. This continues to be an enigma even today because
Mars atmosphere and weak gravity would not allow it to hold an
atmosphere that would sustain liquid
water. If Mars had an atmosphere in
the past, how did the atmosphere get
there and how did it lose it? A large
part of Mars surface in roughly the
southern hemisphere is heavily
cratered and this region is of higher
elevation. But much of the northern
hemisphere is smoother with
dramatically fewer craters and of lower
elevation. This is known as the crustal
dichotomy and this continues to be a
challenging mystery even with all the
new detailed information on Mars from
recent NASA missions.

In geology, young-age creationists
often critique uniformitarianism, which
holds that only presently observed
processes are allowed for consideration
in explaining Earth's geological past (i.e.,
the present is the key to the past). However, since the Bible indicates
there was a global Flood judgement on the Earth, catastrophic processes
often explain Earth's geologic features better than normal slow gradual
processes. Many planets and moons show many indications of geological
catastrophes as well as effects of impacts from space. But, uniformitarianism
is often an evolutionary presupposition in solar system studies
as well. Nobel prize-winning astronomer Hannes Alfven put it this way:

This actualistic principle which emphasizes reliance on
observed phenomena, is the basis for the modern approach to the
geological evolution of the Earth; Ôthe present is the key to the
past. This principle should also be used in the study of the solar
system. (Alfven, 1978, p.27).

An example of where uniformitarian assumptions were very unsuccessful
is the moon of Uranus known as Miranda. Miranda is a small moon less
than 500 km in diameter. NASA mission planners were not particularly
interested in Miranda because a small object cools off more rapidly and
thus it was thought Miranda's surface would be uninteresting. It was
thought there should not be energy to drive dramatic geological
processes so far from the Sun in such a small moon. However, two well
known solar system scientists made the following comments about an
unusual feature on Miranda known as the chevron (Chapman and
Morrison, 1989, p.140):

Even the earliest pictures of Miranda were enigmatic. From a
distance, it looked as though some celestial giant had painted
a big white checkmark on its surface, as if to say, Here's the
answer! Later called the chevron, the immense check mark
remains unexplained to this day.

I prefer to call the celestial giant God. Miranda's surface has many
strange surface forms, such as a cliff face which is nearly 10 miles in
height! The solar system writers quoted above report a NASA scientist
as making the following comment about Miranda's surface.
If you can imagine taking all the bizarre geologic forms in the
solar system and putting them on one object, you've got it in front
of you. (Chapman and Morrison, 1989, p.140).

There are various examples in the solar system of issues in which the
challenge to the uniformitarian evolutionary approach is one of
explaining how there could be energy for billions of years to drive
processes we see evidence of. One type of example of this is in the very
high speed winds measured in the gas giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, and
Neptune. The farther such a planet is from the Sun, the less energy is
being input from the Sun to drive processes in the gases of the planet. So
when wind speeds are found to be much higher than expected, it implies
there is energy coming from the interior of the planet. This raises
questions about the age of the planet and how there could be so much
energy to drive such winds. If these planets are less than ten thousand
years in age, it is easier to explain how there could still be energy for
driving the winds today than if one assumes them to be billions of years
in age.

Another example of a similar problem is Jupiter's volcanic moon Io. Io has
several active volcanoes erupting at any given moment. These volcanoes
are of a variety of types, some causing great explosions of sulphur
compounds that soar high above the surface, and some eruptions
generating very hot lava that flows out onto the surface. There are large
amounts of heat radiating from the surface of Io; the rate would be
approximately 100 million million Watts. Planetary scientists have
experienced difficulty explaining how a small moon about the size of our
moon could give off so much energy. It is known that Jupiter's gravity
strongly heats Io from tidal forces flexing Io's shape similar to squeezing a
rubber ball. But even this mechanism, known as tidal dissipation, is not
an adequate source of heat. A young-age creationary approach simplifies
the problem and suggests that heat is still left in Io from creation or
possibly from a radioactive heating event in the past (Spencer, 2003).
Another area of research in which a young-age creationist approach has
clear advantages over an evolutionary approach is regarding magnetic
fields of planets and moons. Evolutionary scientists developed theories of
what is called a dynamo to explain Earth's magnetic field. The dynamo
theory has it that complicated motions of molten metal in Earth's core
have sustained the magnetic field for Earth's alleged 4.6 billion years of
history. Also, by the dynamo theory, Earth's magnetic field has undergone
many long cycles of reversing polarity in Earth's history and the location
of magnetic North has shifted significantly in the past. The dynamo
model for Earth's magnetic field requires changes in the motion of the
molten metal in the core that have not been adequately explained and
there are various other difficulties with Earth dynamo theories. When
planetary scientists have attempted to apply
Earth-like dynamo models to other objects in the
solar system, problems have been encountered
(Parker, 1983, pp.44, 51-52).

cont'd on page four

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Four

Creationist physicist Dr. D. Russell Humphreys
put forward a model of planetary magnetic fields
that works well for both Earth and other objects
in the solar system. Humphreys' theory is more
flexible than dynamo models and can explain a
wider range of types of planets and moons than
can the dynamo model, which is based on
evolutionary assumptions. Humphreys' approach
assumed an age of roughly 6,000 years for Earth
and the other planets. Humphreys suggested
(1984) that there should be evidence on Mars of
there having been a magnetic field there in the
past from magnetized rock. In 1994 information
was published from the Mars Global Surveyor
mission indicating there were stripes of
magnetized rock on Mars, even though Mars
currently does not have a magnetic field
(Connerney et al, 1994). There were other
confirmations of Humphreys' magnetic field
theories when the Voyager spacecrafts measured
the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. Both
of these planets have odd magnetic fields that
are tilted at least 50 degrees compared to the
orientation of the planet. Humphreys' theory for
planetary magnetic fields accurately predicted
the approximate magnetic field strength of both
Uranus and Neptune before the Voyager
spacecrafts arrived at these planets (Humphreys,
1986; 1990). This is highly significant because
dynamo theories require that there be molten
metal in the core of an object and that the
magnetic field be related to the object's rotation.
In Humphreys' approach, the magnetic field
could come from a solid metal core, not just a
molten core. It also allows for a magnetic field to
be in a very different orientation than the
rotation axis of the planet.
There is so much new information about our
solar system today that it will keep scientists
busy for a long time to come as they try to
unravel the meaning of it all. There are many
problems in solar system studies that will be
challenging for creationists as well as
evolutionists. There has been significant
discussion among creationists about the
question of cratering in the solar system. When
were the craters produced in our solar system?
In the Creation Week, at the Fall of Man, at the
time of Noah's Flood, or multiple of the above?
This continues to be debated among creationists
(Faulkner, 1999; Faulkner and Spencer, 2000;
Froede, 2002; Froede and DeYoung, 1996;
Spencer 2002). As Christians it is important
to realize there are options to be explored for
rethinking and re-explaining the science of
origins in the light of new discoveries. We do not
have to compromise on our biblical convictions.

references

Alfven, H. (1978). Origin of the solar system, in: Dermott, S.F.,
(ed.), The Origin of the Solar System. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Baugher, J. (1988). The Space-Age Solar System. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Chapman, C.R., Morrison, D. (1989). Cosmic Catastrophes.
Plenum Press, New York.
Connerney, J.E.P., Acu.a, M.H., Wasilewski, P.J., Ness, N.F., R�me,
H., Mazelle, C., Vignes, D., Lin, R.P., Mitchell, D.L., Cloutier, P.A.
(1994). Magnetic lineations in the ancient crust of Mars. Science,
284(5415):794-798.
Faulkner, D. (1998). The angular size of the Moon and other
planetary satellites Ð an argument for design. Creation Research
Society Quarterly, 35:23-26.
Faulkner, D. (1999). A biblically-based cratering theory. Creation
Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 13(1):100-104.
Faulkner, D., Spencer, W. (2000). Reply to Biblically-based
cratering theory. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 14(3):
75-77.
Froede, C.R., Jr. (2002). Extraterrestrial bombardment of the
inner solar system: a review with questions and comments based
on new information. Creation Research Society Quarterly,
38:209-212.
Froede, C.R., Jr., DeYoung, D.B. (1996). Impact events within the
young-earth Flood model. Creation Research Society Quarterly,
33:23-34.
Humphreys, D.R. (1984). The creation of planetary magnetic
fields. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 21:140-149.
Humphreys, D.R. (1986). The magnetic field of Uranus. Creation
Research Society Quarterly, 23:115.
Humphreys, D.R. (1990). Good news from Neptune: the Voyager 2
magnetic measurements. Creation Research Society Quarterly,
26:15-17.
Parker, E.N. (1983). Magnetic fields in the cosmos. Scientific
American, 249(2):44-54.
Reeves, H. (1978). The origin of the solar system, in: Dermott, S.F.,
(ed.), The Origin of the Solar System. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Sheppard, S.S., Jewitt, D.C. (2003). An abundant population of
irregular satellites around Jupiter. Nature, 423: 261-263.
Spencer, W.R. (1994). The origin and history of the solar system,
pp. 513-523 in: Walsh, R.E., (ed.), Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Creationism. Creation Science
Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.
Spencer, W.R. (2001). The existence and origin of extrasolar
planets. TJ, 15(1):17-25.
Spencer, W.R. (2002). Response to Carl Froede on extraterrestrial
bombardment. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 39:142-145.
Spencer, W.R. (2003). Tidal dissipation and the age of Io, pp.
585-595 in: Walsh, R.E., (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Creationism. Creation Science
Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.
Taylor, S.R. (1992). Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective.
Cambridge University Press.
10 ORIGINS 37/38
Distance from Sun in A.U.
Relative distances of planets from Sun