Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

Jupiter
Jupiter and Saturn have more moons than any of the other planets in our
solar system and a number of moons have been discovered in recent years.
In the year 2003 alone, 21 new moons were discovered orbiting Jupiter.
New telescope technology has made it possible to detect fainter objects
than ever before. Jupiter is now known to have 61 natural satellites
(Saturn has 31). The majority of these are smaller than 200 km diameter,
in fact, the newly discovered moons at Jupiter are all probably smaller
than 5 km in diameter. This is based on estimates of their sizes, not precise
figures. For Jupiter, 36 of its 61 moons travel retrograde around Jupiter,
opposite to the direction Jupiter spins. Seven of Saturn's moons travel
retrograde. The retrograde moons are usually found to be grouped near
each other. This strongly suggests there was one object that was broken
apart in a collision some time in the past. But the eccentricities of the
orbits of these new moons do not suggest they were captured like SL-9,
unless some force dramatically altered their orbits since their capture.

Present processes cannot explain how there could be enough collisions
or captures to produce so many objects as we now find among Jupiter's
moons. This may imply a catastrophic event or process in the past to
explain moons and craters. Planetary scientists have suggested that in
the early history of the solar system (over 4 billion years ago in their view)
comets were captured by Jupiter with much higher frequency. In the
evolutionary view of the solar system, moons are generally believed to
form as the planet forms, by the dust and other particles pulling together
from the nebula that the whole solar system came from. But there are
difficulties with this concept for the formation of some moons.

For Jupiter, the well known satellites are Io, Europa, Ganymede, and
Callisto, which are referred to as the Galilean moons, after Galileo who
discovered them. These moons are comparable to our Moon in size, though
Ganymede and Callisto are larger. Each of these moons has interesting
unique characteristics. The Galilean moons of Jupiter are easy to observe
with even a very small telescope. Planetary scientists have encountered
very challenging mysteries for each of them. For Io, it is the high heat
output and active volcanoes. With Europa, it is the nature of the interior
and whether there is liquid water under the surface. For Ganymede, it is
the variety of geological structures on its surface. For Callisto, one mystery
is the unusual form of the rings around the Valhalla impact basin. This is
one of the largest impact sites in the outer solar system, with concentric
ridges forming a structure nearly 3,000 km in diameter. Yet, in several
respects it does not have a shape or proportions like other large craters.
Scientists have attempted to explain how natural processes alone would
be sufficient to explain how large gaseous planets might form from a
nebula in space. The theory has it that the nebula would collapse by gravity
into a spinning disk of dust, gas, ice, and mineral grains. The microscopic
solid particles would collide and stick together, forming larger and larger
macroscopic objects. Then these objects, called planetesimals, would pull
more and more material onto them by gravity. It is believed that if a solid
core 10 Earth masses in size formed in this way, this would be enough to
pull large amounts of the gas in the disk onto the solid core, thus forming
a gaseous planet. The bigger the solid core became before the disk could
dissipate and become too thin, the bigger the gas planet would be in the
end. As this process takes place there are other processes occurring in the
Sun that at one point would drive large amounts of gas out of the solar
system. This puts a time limit on the formation of the solid planet core.
For Saturn, planet formation models imply there would not be enough
time for the core to get large enough before the gases dissipate. Thus,
Saturn by the naturalistic evolutionary approach, would not be as large
as it is found today. The same problem could affect Jupiter.
Jupiter is a powerhouse of energy in the solar
system. Though it is very large, it spins on its axis
very rapidly. It also has a very powerful magnetic
field and gives off one million million Watts of
energy in the form of radio waves! Considering
the radio waves and heat given off by Jupiter,
it gives 1.67 times the energy that it receives
from the Sun. In December of 1995 the Galileo
spacecraft sent a probe into Jupiter to collect
data on its gases. It found several things
surprising to planetary scientists. Temperatures
and wind speeds were higher than expected,
which suggests there is heat coming from the
interior somehow. This type of energy and heat
issue may be easier to explain assuming Jupiter is
young rather than billions of years in age (Samec,
2000, pp.3-4). There were other surprises in the
composition of the gases in Jupiter from the
Galileo spacecraft. There was no evidence of
water clouds in Jupiter's upper atmosphere,
which had been expected after the SL-9 comet
impact (Beebe, 1997, p.226). There continues to
be research efforts to explain the data from the
Galileo probe. There continue to be ongoing
unanswered questions even today as scientists
try to reconcile all the data.

Jupiter and Saturn have now been observed over
a significant period of years by various research
efforts. Their various bands of clouds and
occasional storms have been studied a great deal.
Jupiter and Saturn both change their appearance
over time. A very visible feature on Jupiter is the
Great Red Spot. This spot has been observed to
exist for at least 150 years. It is essentially a giant
hurricane. The Red Spot is located between two
streams of gas that move in opposite directions
(Beebe, 1997, pp.33, 35). South of it there are
mild winds moving eastward; this is the same
direction as the motion due to the spin of the
planet. North of the Red Spot there are very
strong westward winds. If Jupiter were highly
tilted the different amounts of solar radiation
falling on Jupiter's Northern and Southern
hemispheres could explain this. But because
Jupiter is only tilted 3 degrees, the reason for the
dramatic contrast between the North and South
equatorial winds is a mystery. The Red Spot also
varies in its position along Jupiter's longitude
(Beebe, 1997, p.36). From about 1930 to 1982
the Red Spot drifted over 270 degrees eastward
in longitude, which is about 3/4 of the way
around the planet! The size of the Red Spot has
varied as well, but the size change is only in the
horizontal dimension. The vertical dimension of
the spot has stayed nearly constant for years. The
reasons for these changes in the Red Spot are not
known. The spot also speeds up and slows down
over periods of days to weeks, relative to the spin of the planet. Much is
still not understood about Jupiter's Great Red Spot.

cont'd in next post

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Three

Saturn
In June 2004 the Cassini spacecraft will enter orbit around Saturn. The
Cassini spacecraft will remain in orbit around Saturn for some years,
similar to how the Galileo spacecraft has done for Jupiter. Cassini will
collect much new information about the rings of Saturn, Saturn's moons,
and the planet itself. Of special interest is that Cassini is equipped with a
probe that will detach from Cassini and descend into the atmosphere of
Saturn's moon Titan. Titan is unique in the solar system as having an
atmosphere that is more dense even than Earth's. This probe is known as
Huygens and was built by the European Space Agency. The Huygens probe
has been designed to function even if it lands in liquid methane, which may
exist on Titan's surface. Cassini was launched in 1997. Cassini made two
flybys of Venus, one flyby of Earth, and another flyby of Jupiter, all to pick
up speed to make the trip to Saturn.

Saturn has been called the most beautiful planet in the solar system,
mainly because of its extensive system of rings. Saturn is nearly double
the distance from the Sun as Jupiter and has the lowest density of all the
planets, being about 70% of the density of water. Saturn is tilted more
than Jupiter (27 degrees) and this makes the appearance of the rings vary
dramatically over periods of several years. Saturn requires about 29.5
Earth years to complete one revolution around the Sun; Jupiter requires
nearly 12 Earth years to do the same. Saturn's colour is a yellow with some
white cloud features. Jupiter's colour is more reddish to brown. It is not
really known for certain what makes this difference in colour, because the
composition of Saturn is very much like Jupiter. Saturn is made up mostly
of hydrogen and helium, though the proportion of helium seems to be less
than that for Jupiter. Saturn has very strong eastward winds in a wide
belt around its equator. These winds have been clocked at speeds of about
1440 kilometres per hour (900 miles per hour) or more. This is much
faster than any winds on Jupiter. There are also occasionally some large
storm systems in the equatorial region that last for periods of months. In
December 1994 one of these storms, about the size of Earth, was observed
by the Hubble Space Telescope. The rapid winds on Saturn make the
rotation period (a Saturnian day) at the equator about 25 minutes less
than it is near Saturn's poles. At the poles Saturn's day would be about 10
hours 39 minutes. Saturn also possesses a strong magnetic field, though
not nearly as intense as that of Jupiter. The strong winds as well as the
average temperature of Saturn imply an internal energy source of some
kind. In fact, Saturn gives off three times the amount of energy it receives
from the Sun (Baugher, 1988, p.207).

Then there are the rings. Saturn's rings are beautiful and complex. Saturn
has much more material in its rings than all the other rings of Jupiter,
Uranus, and Neptune. Saturn's rings are over 60,000 kilometres wide; in
recent studies of the rings, scientists have estimated the vertical thickness of
the rings is something between 10 and 100 metres. The rings are made up
of many chunks of water ice, though it is possible some of them could have
rock inside. There may be small amounts of organic compounds in this ice
in the ring objects (Poulet and Cuzzi, 2002, p.350). The ring objects have
been estimated to have sizes ranging from 1 cm to 20 metres (Nicholson e t
a l, 2000, p.499). Even with the Voyager photographs and the Hubble
Space Telescope, it has not been possible so far to distinguish individual
ring objects in any photograph. So, the above information on the thickness
of the rings and the sizes of ring particles should be considered tentative
estimates. Saturn's rings are very dynamic, with some features that have
been observed to change over periods of just minutes or a few hours.

The Voyager spacecrafts made amazing
discoveries about Saturn's rings. There were what
looked like spokes in the rings. There was also a
ring that was made up of two strands with one
braided around the other. The Voyager
spacecraft also showed that the closer you looked,
the more rings you could see. Planetary scientists
have described them as rings within rings within
rings. Some rings had surprisingly sharply
defined edges though scientists had expected
them to essentially fade out gradually, assuming
they were very old. The moons pull material in the
rings in such a way that they could create a few of
the gaps in the rings. There are also certain waves
that travel through the rings due to collisions of
the objects that probably produce some of the
structure in the rings. But, it is not clear whether
all these natural phenomena are adequate
explanations of the intricate structure in Saturn's
rings. It is estimated the total number of separate
rings may be in the hundreds of thousands.
The origin of Saturn's rings continues to be
debated. The two theories supported most by the
scientific community today are 1) that there was
a moon near Saturn that was broken apart either
by tidal forces or by an impact, or 2) that the ring
objects accreted from dust and ice particles at
the time Saturn formed, but could not form into
larger objects like moons. Since the Voyager
mission there has been growing support for the
first of these two approaches. As a result, some
planetary scientists today hold that Saturn's rings
are actually much younger than the planet, about
50 to 100 million years from an evolutionary
perspective (McNab and Younger, 1999, p.124).
Young-age creationists have also argued Saturn's
rings must be young, not only because of the
intricate structure and sharp edges but also
because the rings are losing water as water falls
onto the planet (Snelling, 1997). Tidal forces
refers to an effect due to gravity in a case where
the force of gravity differs across distance
enough to pull an object into a nonspherical
shape or maybe even pull it apart. The gravitation
force or tidal force from Earth's Moon pulls Earth
into a slightly nonspherical shape so that Earth's
diameter is greater at the equator than it is at the
poles. For small objects near a planet, the tidal
forces can pull the object apart in some cases.
However, tidal disruption would probably not
create a large number of fragments. So, tidal
disruption of a former moon of Saturn into
possibly millions or billions of ring objects may
not be plausible in a young solar system because
it probably would not generate enough objects.
However, if a large collision broke up a moon only
a few thousand years ago, this would generate
many more objects but Saturn's rings may not be
so uniform as they are today, with most of the objects following circular
orbits. The optical properties and brightness of the rings does not vary
significantly as Saturn rotates (except for in the spokes). There are ring
objects that are in elliptical orbits and there are a few nonuniform rings at
Saturn, but these are exceptions to the general rule. If a moon or moons
were disrupted in the past, the fragments would tend to make the rings
more and more uniform over time, due to collisions making the speeds of
the objects more nearly the same. Thus, even from a creation perspective,
the question of the origin of the rings is a challenging one. They could have
some catastrophic origin or they could have been created with the planet.
But there are multiple lines of evidence from the rings of Saturn that they
cannot be billions of years in age.

Thousands of years ago the God of the Bible created two extraordinary
planets in our solar system, Jupiter and Saturn. Jupiter and Saturn are
both very bright in the night sky and are exciting to see even with a small
telescope. These two planets serve an important purpose of protecting
Earth from many impacts from comets. Because these two planets are so
massive, comets are much more likely to impact with Jupiter or Saturn,
than to collide with any object in the inner solar system. This tends to
prevent some impacts with Earth that could threaten life. The size, beauty,
and unique properties of these planets also show us the creativity and
power of God, since He made them. We have so much factual data about
these planets and the upcoming Cassini mission will undoubtedly bring
new surprises and raise new questions about Saturn. Though we have
learned much, even some very basic questions cannot be answered today
with any confidence, such as Why are Saturn and Jupiter such different
colours when their compositions are so nearly the same? With continued
research and God's help, we can look forward to seeing how a creation
perspective helps answer many questions about our solar system.


r e f e r e n c e s
Baugher, J.F. (1988). The Space-Age Solar System. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Beebe, R. (1997). Jupiter: The Giant Planet. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
McNab, D., Younger, J. (1999). The Planets. BBC Worldwide Ltd., London.
Nicholson, P. D., French, R.G., Tollestrup, E., Cuzzi, J.N., Harrington, J., Matthews, K., Perkovic,
O., Stover, R.J. (2000). SaturnÕs rings I: Optical depth profiles from the 28Sgr occultation.
I c a r u s, 145:474-501.
Poulet, F., Cuzzi, J.N. (2002). The composition of SaturnÕs rings. I c a r u s, 160:350Ð358.
Samec, R. (2000). The age of the Jovian planets. T J, 14(1):3-4.
Snelling, A.A. (1997). SaturnÕs rings are short-lived and young. T J, 11(1):1.

[Soldier4Christ]

THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
WAYNE SPENCER
B.S. , M.S. Physics


ABSTRACT

Much has been written on the origin of the solar system from evolutionary points
of view. These views assume only natural processes were involved and that the solar
system is billions of years in age. The currently accepted view, the Modified Nebula
Hypothesis, and the Capture Theory are critiqued in the light of evidence for a young solar
system. A creationist approach is proposed which allows for intellegent design, an age of
less than 10,000 years, and a major solar-system-wide catastrophe in the history of our
solar system. Two possibilities for such a catastrophe are examined, a destroyed planet
in the asteroid region and a debri cloud passing through the solar system. This approach
is more successful in explaining the solar system than the usual naturalistic origins
theories.


INTRODUCTION

The evolution-based models of the origin of our solar system have experienced difficulties which have not been fully discussed in introductory astronomy textbooks. Thus there is the impression that the origin of our solar system by the collapse of a huge cloud is a completely settled issue. This gives the impression to astronomy students that long periods of time are essential, and that such nebula ideas cannot be questioned. This approach is not a good pedagogical practice considering the many limitations of solar system origins models. Also, this approach presumes a naturalistic philosophy and conveniently agrees with the relativistic values of our time. Many people trained in science incorrectly assume that this naturalistic approach is necessary in science.

Creationists, however, approach scientific observations with different presuppositions. To a creationist there is no a priori reason why scientists must explain things using only natural processes. Experimental science limits itself to considering only natural processes; the study of origins does not have this limitation. Supernatural processes are admissible to a creationist since he believes that a transcendent personal Creator-God was present before all else.

However, most creationists would agree that supernatural processes were used primarily at the beginning.
Creationists believe natural forces alone are insufficient for explaining first origins. The study of astronomy has long been very inspiring to Christian believers because it points us to the greatness of the God who made us all. The scientific implications of the creation view can be examined on their own merits, apart from the spiritual implications. But it is a tragic thing to be knowledgeable of all that the Creator-God made and yet completely miss the significance of it because of misunderstanding its origin. The study of these questions is not just facts and figures, it challenges us to consider the Creator and what His creation is revealing to us about Him.

The Creator-God is not limited merely to the familiar things we know of on Earth. There is an amazing variety in the worlds that exist in our planet's "neighborhood." Great extremes of all kinds are present, some of which indicate catastrophic events on a scale difficult for us to imagine. Close study of these worlds shows the great uniqueness of the Earth. Indeed it seems the Creator has been relatively gentle with the Earth, considering the evidence of catastrophes which have occurred elsewhere in the solar system. As Isaiah 45:18 says, "He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited."

Three ideas have guided the author's study of the solar system: 1) that there is evidence of intelligent design, 2) that the solar system is less than 10,000 years in age, and 3) that some major catastrophe occurred in the past that affected much of the solar system in a relatively short time. Hints of such a solar-system-wide catastrophe include craters, the asteroids, planetary rings, and other observations. It is critically important in this study to pull together many different types of data. Catastrophes to be considered in this paper will be 1) an impact with a hypothetical tenth planet in the region of the asteroids, and 2) a debris cloud passing through the solar system.

Before addressing the question of a solar system catastrophe, some historical comments will be followed by a critique of two evolution-based models. It is important to briefly survey evidence for the solar system being young as well.

Many processes relied on by planetary scientists require great periods of time, far more than 10,000 years. Insisting on the solar system being this young places constraints on what processes are plausible in explaining the characteristics of the various objects. A variety of facts will be related to a creation view of the history of the solar system. Assuming a young system and that there was a solar system catastrophe has advantages for explaining a number of observations. To an evolutionist the mystery is the origin of the solar system, but to a creationist who believes in an omnipotent God the mystery is its history, not so much its origin.


cont'd next post

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

The History of Origins Models

In spite of some sophisticated modern modifications, the accepted model for the origin of the solar system is much like the "Nebula Hypothesis" proposed by Pierre Simon Laplace in 1796. Various criticisms arose of Laplace's hypothesis, prompting some to suggest models more catastrophic in nature. In 1917 Sir James Jeans proposed what is known as the Tidal Theory, which was the accepted view for a time. In the Tidal Theory a very massive star passes near our Sun, which had supposedly already formed by condensing from an interstellar nebula. Then the passing star causes a filament of matter to be pulled off the Sun, which would then break up into segments due to gravity. Serious problems were found with this theory as well, which even Jeans eventually conceded. The problems with the Tidal Theory led scientists in the 1930s and 40s to work on more complex approaches to the Nebula model.

Today most ideas from planetary scientists are virtually the same as ideas of the 1960s and 70s. Today solar system origins theories can be thought of as of two general classes, the Modified Nebula Models and Catastrophic Models. Modern "Nebula" ideas incorporate principles of plasma physics as well as theories on the evolution of our Sun.

he Nebula models utilize the slow gradual approach in which the Sun, the planets, and all other objects condense from an interstellar nebula. The competing view to this today comes mainly from Michael Woolfson and John Dormand and is known as the Capture Theory [ ]. The Capture Theory could be loosely described as the reverse of the Tidal Theory, with additional effects from a major collision of two planets.


Assumptions and Limitations of Today's Theories

Experts in planetary science have expressed concerns about the assumptions and limitations of today's theories.

Modern Nebula models emphasize uniformitarianism, applied to the solar system. The Nobel prize winning
astronomer Hannes Alfven makes this point very clearly [1, p.27]:

This 'actualistic principle' which emphasizes reliance on observed phenomena, is the basis for the
modern approach to the geological evolution of the Earth; 'the present is the key to the past.' This
principle should also be used in the study of the solar system.
H. Reeves, writing the lead article in an important book on the origin of the solar system, calls the Nebula Model the theory with the "best fit" to the observational data. Reeves then makes the following comments [16, p.1-3].

How much confidence can we place in this 'best fit' theory? Not very much.
I will reconstruct the sequence of events leading to the formation of the solar system, choosing
the chronological stages which seem to me to be the most likely. Even so the argument is highly
speculative and some of it borders on science fiction.

If experts who have done extensive research directly related to origins make comments like this, then it is not
appropriate for astronomy textbooks to treat the subject dogmatically. Textbooks are seldom written to give a
balanced perspective on the various origins explanations.


Nebula models are meant to explain how a gigantic cloud in space, such as we observe, can contract and condense into our Sun, planets, over 60 moons, as well as thousands of asteroids and other small objects. Interstellar clouds are found to be rotating and possess a weak magnetic field. Some nebula models rely on the matter to come from the interstellar medium itself, rather than from a nebula. H. Reeves summarized the problems associated with forming coherent bodies from interstellar material. Three important problems are that "The clouds are too hot, too magnetic, and they rotate too rapidly" [16, p.9].

Because ideas based on uniformitarianism rely on natural processes such as gravity, gas pressure, magnetic effects, and collisions, each type of model predicts certain patterns. Standard Nebula ideas, for instance, led scientists to expect that the moons of Uranus and Neptune should not show much evidence of past geologic or tectonic activity.

These moons were expected to have dull uninteresting surfaces as a result. This was due to the fact that small
objects radiate heat more rapidly than larger ones and the temperatures at the time of formation would have been very cold at the distances from the Sun where Uranus and Neptune are found. Since planetary scientists assumed these moons to be very old (about 4.6 billion years), they reasoned that there should not be enough heat energy in the interiors to drive significant geological activity.

These assumptions were proven wrong as the Voyager spacecrafts discovered surprising and amazing features in the Uranian and Neptunian systems. For example, Neptune has the highest speed retrograde winds known--winds which travel in a left-handed sense instead of the usual right-handed sense. ("Right-handed" means that if one points upward or northward with the right thumb, the fingers will curl in the direction of the motion or spin.) These winds reach up to 2,100 kilometers per hour and change even more rapidly than the winds of Jupiter. Furthermore, on Triton an erupting geyser was discovered ejecting material eight kilometers above the surface [10, p.179].

hese features are easier to explain if the solar system is only thousands of years in age, for then primordial heat left over from creation could still be driving these processes. An even more dramatic example of the failure of the uniformitarian assumptions is the moon of Uranus known as Miranda. Two well known solar system authors made the following striking comments about Miranda [5, 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 check mark 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 find it easier to believe in a "celestial giant" than to believe that natural processes alone are responsible for
surprising features such as this. However, I prefer to call the "celestial giant" God. Miranda possesses many
additional strange surface forms, such as a cliff face which is nearly 10 miles in height! These surprises were found on a moon which is only 600 miles in diameter. The solar system writers referred to above quoted a NASA scientist as saying the following about Miranda's surface [5, p.140]. 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.

The usual response of planetary scientists to major surprises is to add complex and speculative processes to the basic Nebula model rather than to examine the validity of the model itself. The assumption of the system being very old comes up again and again. But assuming the solar system to be young simplifies the process of explaining various features, as will be elaborated on later in this paper.


cont'd next post

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Three

Age of the Solar System

Since many creationists hold to the position that the solar system and universe is less than 10,000 years in age, this raises many questions about processes believed to have shaped solar system objects and their surfaces. Various processes must have happened in a much shorter time span than is generally believed. Craters, for instance, are found throughout the solar system, but are not uniformly distributed. Instead of multiple periods of heavy bombardment separated by periods of millions of years, a young solar system would imply that somehow the many craters observed must have formed relatively quickly compared to evolutionary time scales. Certain processes assumed to be plausible by most planetary scientists would become impossible if the solar system is "young." Various types of mechanical, thermal, chemical, and radioactive processes would have a very different role in the history of our solar system from a young age interpretation. This raises many issues that creationists need to study on a technical level.

Much could be written about evidences for a young solar system. The strength of the evidence for our system being young lies in the fact that a variey of unrelated processes point to the same conclusion. Creationists have
documented many indicators of youth for our home planet, Earth. Other processes must be brought to bear on the question of the age of the solar system as a whole. It is necessary to assemble arguments for youth from unrelated processes in different parts of the solar system.

I have calculated a rough age figure for Saturn's moon Titan of 181,000 years based on the production of ethane
in Titan's atmosphere [18]. I have also studied the argument for our Moon being young based on the influx of cosmic dust from space. Some creationist writings have used outdated unrealistic numbers for the thickness of a layer of dust there would be on an old Moon. The Moon dust argument no longer seems to be valid. At the present dust influx rate, the amount of dust which would be present on a 10,000 year old Moon would be virtually immeasurable. Thus, the cosmic dust influx implies some significant catastrophe occurred in the past which caused a high influx of dust in a relatively short time. Other arguments for a young solar system could be mentioned. The author is aware of such an argument related to heat dissipation in Jupiter's moon Io. If Io were 4.6 billion years in age, its orbit would have shifted farther from Jupiter than the present position [13].


The Modified Nebula Model

The Modified Nebula Model begins with a Nebula in interstellar space and attempts to explain how this cloud could contract and condense into the existing objects. Following is a description of the stages involved in the model which is the accepted view today. It must be understood that numerous variations on this have been suggested by different scientists. After looking at the Modified Nebula models, the "Capture Theory," a catastrophic model with evolutionary assumptions will be examined as well. Then catastrophic models with creationist assumptions will be mentioned.

The nebula which our solar system is believed to have formed from is frequently referred to as the "protosolar
nebula." The prefix "proto" is sometimes used in reference to planets or moons as well, indicating objects that are not yet completely coherent bodies. The protosolar nebula has been assumed to have a mass of about 100,000 times the mass of our Sun and is believed to have initially been much larger than our solar system. The nebula is assumed to be initially rotating slowly and possess a weak magnetic field. Cooling of the cloud would allow it to contract due to gravity. This contraction would cause the rotation of the cloud to accelerate and the initial magnetic field would increase in intensity. Matter pulling toward the center of the cloud would form a central ball called the protosun. The combination of contraction and rotation would cause the cloud to become a disk made up of solid mineral grains (microscopic in size) and ices, with the Sun in the center. Dust and gases would surround and envelope this disk.
 
At this point there would be no large macroscopic rocky objects but there could be small chunks of ices. These ices would be composed of water, methane, and ammonia and would primarily form only beyond about 5 A.U. from the Sun. Most of the matter in the nebula as a whole would be hydrogen and helium, with comparatively small amounts of other elements. If the contraction merely continued as described, almost all the mass in the solar system would today be found in the Sun, as would almost all the rotational energy. However, though it is true that nearly all the mass of the solar system is in the Sun, the planets possess most of the angular momentum while the Sun spins very slowly.


To attempt to explain this, modern nebula models apply plasma physics to the contracting cloud. Scientists have attempted to explain mechanisms that can transport matter inward toward the Sun and simultaneously transfer angular momentum outward. It is assumed that before there were significant macroscopic objects, an electrical current could have flowed through the cloud, causing a "magnetic coupling" between the central mass (the protosun) and the surrounding nebula. This effect is believed to have transferred angular momentum and rotational energy from the central mass to the surrounding medium to make the planets move rapidly in their orbits compared to the spin rate of the Sun. This magnetic effect is depended on to enable the particles in the disk to accelerate to speeds such that they will follow Kepler's Laws of motion. If the tiny grains do not follow Kepler's Laws at this early stage, then the planets would not be able to travel in stable orbits after they formed.

Next the system reaches what is often referred to as an accretionary stage. The protosun would continue to heat up as it contracted until eventually nuclear reactions could begin. This marks the "birth" of our Sun. Most of the solid material would lie in the plane of the disk. It is believed this disk would separate into rings, though there is not general agreement on how this would occur. These rings would then form into planets and a similar disk to rings to object process on a smaller scale would occur to form moons.

Scientists suggest the action of turbulence and random motions could lead to grains clustering enough so that gravity could begin pulling the matter together by its own weight. It is believed that over long periods of time these grains would, by occasionally sticking together, "accrete" into larger and larger objects. These solid accreting objects would eventually reach the size of what are called "planetesimals." Planetesimals vary in shape and other characteristics and might be up to a few hundred kilometers in size. The asteroids are believed to be planetesimals which were not able to accrete into planets.

At this stage, the solar system would still be filled with much dust and gas, enough to make the whole system
opaque. The young Sun would then enter a stage of its own "evolution" known as the T-Tauri stage. The result is
a very intense "solar wind" of various particles and radiation emitted from the Sun. It is believed this "solar gale,"
would clear much of the excess gas and dust out of the system. Some astronomers also believe that electric currents would flow through this "wind" in such a way as to slow the rotation of the Sun further. Scientists have suggested that our Sun may have lost about one half of its original mass in a period of one million years during this stage.

By the end of this period the solar system would be transparent and the planets, moons, and other objects would be coherent bodies but would not be layered in their interiors since gravitational accretion would not produce layered objects. It is thought that at this point there would be very heavy bombardment by meteorites throughout the system. Meteorites, volcanic activity, and radioactive decay are believed to have caused the newly formed planets and moons to heat sufficiently so that the more dense material would sink to the center and the less dense material would move closer to the surface. This would form layered structures within the large bodies such as planets and moons. This period of many impacts is believed to have ended about four billion years ago.


cont'd next post

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Four

Difficulties with Nebula Models

How plausible is this process? Much mathematical work has been done to attempt to give a theoretical basis for it.

This technical level work sometimes looks very impressive except when one looks critically at two things, the starting assumptions built in to the calculation and the degree of fit with the observed characteristics of the solar system.

Frequently it is possible to put forth impressive looking mathematical models of a small part of the process. But
scientists are not always able to connect one stage to the next in a way that is physically realistic. Just as in the
study of paleontology, there are "missing links." Three general types of problems will be considered here. These
6 are 1) problems in the collapse process, 2) problems in explaining present motions of objects, and 3) problems in explaining composition relationships in the solar system.

Various problems exist in the timing of the different processes occurring during the collapse of the Nebula. One of the more perplexing problems of current interest is what is referred to the "runaway formation of Jupiter" and the other gas giant planets. Nebula collapse theories imply that nearly all hydrogen and helium would be removed from the Nebula in a time of about one million years. This means that the four gas giant planets would have to form a central core of about 10 earth masses in less than one million years. The more massive the planet, the quicker it would form by gravitational contraction. Some models show a Jupiter core forming in as little as 700,000 years, Saturn in 3.8 million years (M.Y.), Uranus in 8.4 M.Y., and Neptune in 23 M.Y. [S.R. Taylor,pp16-17]. This is too slow because the hydrogen, helium, and other light gases would not be available long enough for a 10 earth mass cor to form. Without a core of about this size, gravity would not be sufficient to complete the accretion of matter onto the body. The end result then would be that the gas giant planets would not be as large as we find them today. Various processes would interfere with the collapse of the Nebula. The initial temperature of the nebula is a critical part of the problem and a point of controversy. Theoretical collapse models begin assuming a density of the cloud much greater than the observed densities of interstellar nebulae. Other properties of interstellar nebulae also differ from the values used in the origins calculations. The cloud must collapse a great deal, causing rotation to accelerate, magnetic field strength to increase, and temperature to increase. All three of these changes tend to stop collapse.

Also, the slow rotation of the Sun coupled with the rapid motion of the planets in their orbits is not adequately
explained by collapse models. The angular momentum of the protosun during collapse must be decreased by a
factor of 104 to 106, and the protosun must do this in such a way as to lose only about five percent of its mass [15].

(Note that this five percent of the protosun's mass does not correspond to the mass of the planets.) Mass must
somehow flow to the Sun while the material which later becomes the planets is accelerated in orbit.
Scientists have not explained how so much angular momentum could be transferred to the planets and in such a way as to leave the Sun at its present size. Hannes Alfven, who does not agree with many of the standard accepted theories, lays great emphasis on the role of magnetic fields and plasma effects to explain the angular momentum.


However, most scientists generally agree that Alfven's calculations assume an unrealistically strong magnetic field at the start. Alfven has written strong criticisms of the standard Nebula models [2]. Many astronomers today assume that the angular momentum problem has been long-since resolved by new models. But Stuart Ross Taylor, in a recent book made the comment that "The ultimate origin of the angular momentum of the solar system remains obscure [S.R. Taylor, p53]."


The second class of problems with Nebula models involves various motions that exist in our solar system which do not fit the pattern implied by Nebula models. Some aspects considered to be strengths of the Nebula model are the following. All the planets orbit nearly in one plane, travelling in the same right-handed manner around the Sun (prograde direction). Most of the planets also spin in the same right-handed manner, as does the Sun. Most moons also travel around the Sun and spin in the same right-handed sense. This is said to be due to the initial spin of the original nebula.

There are striking exceptions to these regular patterns. The Sun, for instance, is tilted about 7 degrees in angle
compared to the rest of the solar system. What would cause the entire disk to be tilted in relation to the central
body? Also, there are six known cases of moons which orbit retrograde, opposite the direction which the planet
spins. Four of these are the outermost four moons of Jupiter, one is Phoebe at Saturn, the last is Triton at Neptune.

Phoebe is particularly unique since it is the only moon which orbits retrograde but that spins prograde.
In the Nebula hypothesis all rotation and orbital motion comes from the motion of the original rotating nebula.
Furthermore, Venus, Uranus, and Pluto all spin retrograde. There are too many exceptions to the pattern predicted by the Nebula model. Sometimes scientists have assumed that Uranus, which is tilted 98 degrees, was at one time tilted and spinning with an orientation more like the other planets. Then something caused it to tilt over and the moons were somehow spun off of Uranus into their present orbits. Alfven makes the following comment about this scenario [2, p.219].

In fact, to place the Uranian satellites in their present (almost coplanar circular) orbits would
require all the trajectory control sophistication of modern space technology. It is unlikely that any
natural phenomenon, involving bodies emitted from Uranus could have achieved this result.

Another problem would include the distribution of mass across the solar system. The general approach of a cloud collapsing to form the Sun and planets, should also explain the formation of moons. Again, Alfven comments [2, p.218-219].


In addition to these obvious discrepancies between the implied uniform and the actually observed
distributions of mass in the solar system, the whole disc idea is tied to the theoretical concept of
a contracting mass of gas which could collapse to form both the central body and the surrounding
secondaries via the intermediate formation of the disc. . . . small bodies cannot be formed in this
way and it is questionable whether even Jupiter is large enough to have been formed by such a
collapse process.


A third general type of problem for Nebula models has to do with the composition of the planets and other objects in relation to their distance from the Sun. This subject is quite complex and much has been published about it.

The study of many different radioactive isotopes has been done to discover patterns in their amounts across the solar system. According to the Nebula model, the inner planets would form at higher temperatures than the outer planets. This and other processes occurring in the cloud would determine the composition of all objects. When amounts of an element or isotope do not easily or obviously fit into the Nebula Model, it is referred to as a composition anomaly.

The elaborate theory related to this is referred to as the chemical equilibrium theory. Space does not allow
elaboration on these anomalies. However, I would like to suggest certain types of anomalies for creationists to study.

Attempting to explain the amounts of the many isotopes present in the planets by natural processes alone is akin to attempting to juggle perhaps 200 balls at once. Scientists have not been able to explain processes that can give the right amounts of all the constituents all at once-and do so for all the planets. You just cannot keep all the balls up. One example worth study in this regard would be water contents on Venus, Earth, and Mars. Oxygen and Magnesium isotopes in meteorites have been mentioned as anomalous by various researchers. Amounts of the Noble gases on Venus, Earth, and Mars also are anomalous [11]. One NASA scientist made the following admission in an article about composition anomalies[12].


In fact, I would suggest that there is no model for the origin of our own Sun which successfully
predicts all of the complex isotopic and chemical relationships observed in the comets, meteorites,
and planets of our Solar System.


cont'd next post

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Five

The Capture Theory

The modern Capture Theory represents a catastrophic evolutionary approach to the origin of the solar system. At the beginning of this scenario our Sun has formed. Then a protostar passes near our Sun, this protostar being a loosely held together ball of gas. The pull of our Sun on the protostar severely distorts its shape and a filament of matter is pulled off of the protostar. This filament then breaks into segments, which become six large gaseous planets. In this scenario, our solar system would not possess nine planets in the beginning, but six.

A large amount of gas pulled off of the protostar supposedly becomes a cloud that surrounds our Sun after the
protostar passes by. All of these six planets would initially travel in highly elliptical orbits (eccentricities estimated
to be .68 to .91)[7, p.156]. It is not possible for an object that is captured into orbit to have a near circular orbit. This surrounding medium of gas would round the elliptical orbits into circular orbits such as the planets now have. This would occur, due to gas drag resisting motion. Time required for this rounding is estimated to be 105 to 6 x 106 years.

All of the new planets thus formed would be gas and fluid in nature. The inner two of these are referred to simply
as A and B. A and B would have occupied the regions in which Earth, the Asteroids, and Mars are found today.
These two planets no longer exist because it is believed they collided. It is believed that our Moon and Mars were
moons of planets A and B. Mercury, Venus, and Earth are believed to be fragments from the collision. Other
interesting captures, orbit changes, and tidal effects are believed to have occurred as well.


Problems with The Capture Theory

The work of Dormand and Woolfson on the Capture Theory provides valuable insights into the nature of collisions and tidal interactions between objects. The idea of a filament breaking into segments seems to be exactly like the older Jeans Tidal model. Other computer studies have shown that any kind of filament drawn off of a gaseous body will either disperse into space or just fall back to the object, not condense into planets [3, p.378]. A major problem for both the Capture Model and the Nebula Model is the evidence for a young solar system. In less than 10,000 years there would not be sufficient time for orbits to round into being nearly circular. Other problems could be mentioned such as the orientation of Uranus and its moons.

The Capture Theory tends to give much attention to certain observations about the solar system which the Nebula Model cannot explain well. The reverse may also be true. The Nebula model gives more attention to explaining the "regular" patterns in the solar system while the Capture Theory attempts to better explain retrograde orbits, compositon anomalies, and the angular momentum of the Sun and planets. Our solar system is too orderly to come from something like the capture and collison processes of the Capture Theory. At the same time, our solar system contains too many surprising and varied features to fit the relationships implied by the Nebula Model. The solar system can be better understood by acknowledging there is evidence of intelligent design in the orderly regular patterns, and yet evidence of catastrophic events that have altered what was originally created.


cont'd next post

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Six

Catastrophism in a Young Solar System

Scientists addressing solar system origins, even Nebula
theorists, frequently suggest various capture and collision
processes. To the author's knowledge, orbit captures have
been proposed for about nine different objects in our
solar system. All of these seem very unlikely in the author's
opinion, except perhaps one, Neptune's moon Nereid.
Nereid is the only moon or planet in our system which has a
very high eccentricity, its value being .75. Pluto's
eccentricity is .249. (The eccentricity measures how elongated
the orbit is.) Nereid's eccentricity is consistent with
it being captured into its present orbit. To have so many
capture processes in one solar system, including one for
every moon orbiting retrograde, is very unlikely. Captures are
not possible when an orbit is circular, not that is, if orbit
rounding would require millions of years. Orbit rounding, for
moons, could not take place by a resisting medium
because extremely long times would be required greater
than the lifetime of any medium. The interaction of tides
and orbits can round orbits some, but in a young solar system
this probably would not be very significant in most
cases. Therefore, the origin of the retrograde moons by
capture represents an unrealistic application of
catastrophism. Rather, the motion of these moons indicates intelligent design.
Catastrophic processes destroy order, they do not produce order,
not by natural processes at least. Evidence for
catastrophism must be found in irregular or random characteristics.
Craters and volcanic events also can be
considered catastrophism. In 1992 the author discussed
evidence for design and catastrophism in our solar system
[17]. Large impact sites are found on a number of objects in the
solar system [17, p.166]. A number of these were evidently
caused by impacts which had a major effect
on the moon or planet.

Mars, for instance, possesses two hemispheres which are
quite different, the northern hemisphere is 1-2 km lower
than the southern hemisphere [Carr, 1981,p64]. The northern
hemisphere is quite smooth and has few craters
(except in small areas). The southern hemisphere is much
more heavily cratered and possesses two extremely large
impact sites called Hellas and Argyre. Hellas' outer ring is
4,200 km (2,610 mi.) in diameter. Nearly on the opposite
side of the planet (antipodal) is the large bulge known as
the Tharsis region. Several giant volcanic mountains lie
on this bulge, including Olympus Mons [19]. Massive
impacts on Mars could have stimulated a great deal of volcanic
activity which covered a large fraction of the surface.
Surface readjustments following the impacts might explain the
difference in the two hemispheres. Most planetary scientists
do not believe that the Hellas impact is related to the
Tharsis volcanoes because long-age assumptions lead them
to conclude the two regions are of very different ages.

Craters are very important clues for us regarding the history
of the solar system. They represent a record of the past.
The numbers and sizes of craters show interesting relationships.
Note that the largest impact sites are not craters
at all but flat smooth plains surrounded by concentric
rings of mountains. On icy surfaces concentric circular ridges
can indicate a large impact, such as Valhalla on Jupiter's
moon Callisto (outer ring 3,000 km in diameter). These
smooth plains on our Moon are called Mare. These
are what I refer to as super-impacts. In these impacts, extensive
volcanic flows completely fill the crater, and the only
visible sign of the impact are the rings of mountains
around it. On the Moon the largest of these superimpact
sites are found on the near side. The largest
clear site such as this is the Imbrium basin, whose main
rim is 1,200 km (746 mi.) in diameter; a much larger
basin which may be an impact site is Procellarum, which
is 3,200 km (1,988 mi.) [9]. The impact sites and signs
of volcanism on Mars gives evidence of a very violent
history for that planet. On Mars there are a number of
sites which are surrounded by 4, 5, and even 6
concentric rings of mountains. The largest of these is
the Elysium impact basin, whose fifth ring is 4,970 km
(3,088 mi.) in diameter [bk "Mars", 1992].

If the solar system is 4.6 billion years in age one would
expect many objects to be saturated with craters over
much or all of the surface. Crater saturation is reached
when a new impact would destroy at least one other, so
that the number of craters in a certain area could no
longer increase. It cannot be proven that any object in
the solar system is saturated with craters over a large
part of its surface. There is evidence that even the
mostly densely cratered areas on the Moon are not
saturated [21]. Also, crater density is not constant over
the surfaces of several bodies in the solar system.
Figure 1 graphs the total number of large impact sites
found in three size ranges and in three bands of latitude
for our Moon. Only the 46 largest impact sites are
represented [9]. The equatorial band extends from
19.5° North to 19.5° South latitude, dividing the Moon's
surface into three bands of equal area. The northern
and southern polar bands include all other latitudes.
Figure 1 shows that there are more large impact sites
around the Moons equator (this may or may not hold
true for all sizes of craters). There are also more large
impact sites at the south pole than the north pole. The
size figures indicate ranges of diameters. For instance
"250" includes all the large sites from 250 to 499
kilometers.

Asymmetrical crater distribution can be explained easily
by assuming the solar system is only thousands of
years in age and some event caused a high rate of
meteoritic bombardment in a short time. Mercury and
Saturn's moon Enceladus also exhibit asymetrical crater
distribution [17, p.166]. Saturn's moon Rhea clearly has
more craters around its North pole than near its equator
[14]. A former planet between the orbits of Mars and
Jupiter and a cloud of debris passing through the solar
system would both cause high rates of meteor
bombardment for some period of years.

A question that should be asked is "what object in the
solar system has the highest density of craters in a given
area?" The answer does not happen to be our Moon, but
seems to be the inner moons of Saturn. This is illustrated
by Figure 2, which compares the density of craters for four
different objects in the solar system [14, 19, 21]. Note that
Figure 2 uses a logarithmic scale to compress the vertical
axis. In Figure 2, Epimetheus has the highest crater
density. This is a very small object and is one of the two
"coorbital moons" of Saturn which exchange orbits every
four years. Mimas has a crater density graph similar to
Epimetheus. Moons which lie farther from Saturn show
fewer craters per unit area than our own Moon.
Planetary rings and the characteristics of the asteroids
also give us clues on possible catastrophes in our solar
system. Scientists have argued that some planetary rings,
such as at Uranus, must be less than 1,000 years in age
[8]. In 1992 I suggested that there may be two classes of
rings--created rings and catastrophically formed rings [17,
p.164-5].
There may also be two classes of asteroids. Though
many asteroids are irregular in shape, some are spherical,
which should not be possible in a very old solar system,
due to collisions [20]. For instance, Ceres, the largest
asteroid, has an equitorial radius of 480 km and a polar
radius of 453 km, making it nearly spherical [S.R.Taylor, p226]. Also, large asteroids exhibit a very strange rotation
pattern (See Figure 3). Apparently no one has been able to put forth a natural mechanism to explain this
relationship. For asteroids larger than about 120 to 150 km in diameter, the larger the object, the faster it rotates [6].
This does not seem possible for objects that are collision fragments since for a given amount of angular momentum,
a larger object would rotate slower. Smaller asteroids, however, show the opposite pattern.

cont'd next post

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Seven

Two Possible Catastrophes

One possible catastrophic event which could affect the entire solar system is a former planet that existed in the region now occupied by the asteroids, between Mars and Jupiter. If a large object came from outside the solar system at high speed and struck a planet betweeen Mars and Jupiter, what would happen? The impacting object and the planet could be deflected out of the system, leaving some debris that would scatter into various orbits within the solar system. Or, both masses might be destroyed, but in any case one would expect most of the mass to leave
the solar system. Some fragments could go into orbits such as the asteroids now have. Other fragments could move off at higher speeds that could carry them to the outer solar system, for instance. After such an event, there would be collisions for some time. This impacted planet model has difficulties dealing with the rotation pattern of large asteroids.

It seems that some of the best clues on the history of our solar system come from the smallest things--such as comets and asteroids. Asteroids have varied orbital characteristics; many have elliptical orbits, but relatively few have highly elliptical orbits with eccentricity greater than 0.5. Similarly with the inclinations of their orbits: Relatively few of them have orbits inclined more than 20°. This may suggest that they originate from within the ecliptic plane (the
plane of the Earth's orbit), or nearly so. Asteroids seem to all orbit and spin right-handed in direction. These facts could agree well with a destroyed planet model. Comets, on the other hand, are found to travel either prograde or retrograde in their orbits. Comets also are icy objects whereas asteroids are rocky. Asteroids are today classified by their composition into 14 different types. These types have been described as either igneous (high melting point
minerals), primitive (volatile lower melting point compounds), or metamorphic (volatiles removed). The igneous asteroids are found closer to the Sun while the more volatile ones are found farther from the Sun [4]. This pattern is somewhat similar to that of the planets, with the materials with higher melting and boiling points farther from the Sun.

There are certain other arguments for a possible planet breakup or collision in the asteroid region from what are called "new" comets, or "very long period comets." These are comets with very long orbital periods. From considering the orbits of these new comets, it is known that they must be on their first trip in toward the Sun. Also, the points on their orbits which are farthest from the Sun seem to cluster somewhat in certain parts of the sky. Their orbital periods also cluster about certain values, possibly indicating they could have come from a common point of origin [20, p.51-72]. This deserves further study as well and may be difficult to explain for the debris cloud model.

The "debri cloud model" would involve a cloud of solid objects passing through the solar system. Since the moons in the Saturn system have the highest crater density, perhaps that could be the region which the debris cloud first passed through. Since moons such as Enceladus and Rhea have more craters on the North poles, that could be the initial direction of approach of the debris cloud. Debris missing Saturnian objects would be scattered due to the gravitational pull of various objects into various paths. Many of these paths could take debris below the plane of the ecliptic and back up to pass through the ecliptic again "from below." By this time the debris would be in the inner solar system, having been deflected by the outer planets and perhaps Mars.

At this point could enter another assumption--that there were primordial asteroids present from creation in the asteroid region. These created asteroids may have simply been created with the "unnatural" rotation relationship mentioned above. As the debris cloud (or a portion of it) made its second pass through the plane of the ecliptic, more collisions would result, causing some asteroids to break up and go into unstable trajectories that would cause them to later collide with our Moon, Mercury, Venus, or Mars. The objects in the debri cloud, by this scenario, would need
to be large enough to be able to significantly alter the motion of asteroids they collide with. Since their are few large impact sites in the outer solar system compared to the inner solar system, I would suppose that few of the debri cloud objects would be large (such as a large asteroid or larger). After the collisions with the asteroids, asteroids and
collision fragments could impact with bodies in the inner solar system over a period of years. (A similar effect would occur if a planet between Mars and Jupiter were destroyed.)
This debri cloud model would imply that craters in the outer solar system would show evidence of being formed in a very short time. This is exactly what the moon Enceladus at Saturn looks like. By this model, however, craters in the inner solar system would be expected to have formed over a period of years, since the asteroids and other objects put into unstable orbits would fall onto inner solar system bodies at different times. This model might explain the differences in cratering between the inner verses the outer solar systems, since the craters in the two regions would be formed by different objects, and from different directions. Neither of these catastrophic models would
preclude the possibility of other unrelated impacts. Neither of these models would explain all the craters or all the varied surface features around the solar system. However, this approach seems more plausible than the current popular approach of postulating many unrelated collisions and other events over 4.5 billion years of solar system history. An approach based on catastrophism in a young solar system may explain how many different impacts and other volcanic features could be either directly or indirectly caused by one main event.


CONCLUSION

Obviously these ideas are speculative. Yet a creationist approach is a valid one for unravelling the true history of our solar system. There is a need for various computer calculations to be done to simulate these type of models.
There is probably not enough information available at this time to definitively judge between these two catastrophes.

At this time, I find the debri cloud model the most satisfying. These two catastrophic models-the destroyed planet model and the debri cloud model-are not necessarily the only possibilities.
Though dating the time of occurrence of a major solar system catastrophe may be impossible scientifically, I suspect it would correspond in some way with God's judgement on the Earth at the time of the Noahic Flood. I say this only for theological reasons, since such catastrophes would seem to have little purpose except judgement and display of God's power. Remnants of craters of significant size are being discovered on Earth at the rate of several per year.

Some have been found which would be over 100 miles in diameter. The author suspects that along with the many other atmospheric, volcanic, and tectonic activities in the Earth at that time there were also impacts from space. The author doubts that it is possible for any of the impacts discovered on Earth to have changed the earth's tilt or caused all the processes of Noah's Flood. It may be that impacts played a more significant role after the Flood than during the Flood year.

cont'd next post

[Soldier4Christ]

REFERENCES


[1] H. Alfven, Origin of the Solar System, in The Origin of the Solar System, S. F. Dermott, editor, 1978, John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
[2] H. Alfven and G. Arrhenius, Structure and Evolutionary History of the Solar
System, 1975, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland and Boston, Mass.
[3] J. F. Baugher, The Spaceage Solar System, 1988, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 203.
[4] R. P. Binzel, M. A. Barucci, and M. Fulchignoni, The Origins of the Asteroids, Scientific American,
265:4(1991), Oct., 91,93.
[5] C. R. Chapman and D. Morrison, Cosmic Catastrophes, 1989, Plenum Press, New York, 140.
[6] S. F. Dermott and C. D. Murray, Asteroid Rotation Rates Depend on Diameter and Type, Nature,
296(April 1, 1982) 418-421.
[7] J. R. Dormand and M. M. Woolfson, The Origin of the Solar System: The Capture Theory, (1989), Ellis
Horwood Limited, Chichester, England, 156.
[8] L. W. Esposito, The Changing Shape of Planetary Rings, Astronomy, 15:9(1987), Sept., 15.
[9] F. Horz, R. Grieve, G. Heiken, P. Spudis, & A. Binder, Lunar Surface Processes, Lunar Sourcebook: A
User's Guide to the Moon, (1991), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 118-119.
[10] W. J. Kaufmann, Voyager at Neptune-A Preliminary Report, Mercury, 18:6(1989), Nov./Dec.
[11] M. B. McElroy and M. J. Prather, Noble Gases in the Terrestrial Planets, Nature, 293(1981), Oct. 15, 535-
539.
[12] J. Nuth, Small Grains of Truth, Nature, 349(1991), Jan. 3, 19.
[13] J. C. Pearl and W. M. Sinton, Hot Spots of Io, Satellites of Jupiter, D. Morrison, editor, 1982, Univ. of
Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, 753.
[14] J. B. Plescia, and J. M. Boyce, Crater Densities and Geological Histories of Rhea, Dione, Mimas, and
Tethys, Nature, 295(1982) 285.
[15] A. J. R. Prentice, Towards a Modern Laplacian Theory for the Formation of the Solar System, The
Origin of the Solar System, S. F. Dermott, editor, 1978, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 116-119.
[16] H. Reeves, The Origin of the Solar System, in The Origin of the Solar System, S. F. Dermott, editor, 1978,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
13
[17] W. R. Spencer, Design and Catastrophism in the Solar System, Proceedings of the 1992 Twin-
Cities Creation Conference, (1992).
[18] W. R. Spencer, Unpublished paper (This paper was withdrawn and never published.)
[19] R. G. Strom, et al., The Martian Impact Cratering Record, Mars, H. H. Kieffer, B. M. Jakosky, C. W.
Snyder, M. S. Matthews, editors, (1992), Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, 384.
[20] T. C. Van Flandern, A Former Asteroidal Planet as the Origin of Comets, Icarus, 36(1978) 68.
[21] A. Woronow, R. G. Strom, and M. Gurnis, Interpreting the Cratering Record: Mercury to Ganymede to
Callisto, Satellites of Jupiter, (1982), Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, 239-249.

[Soldier4Christ]

Where Did Cain Find His Wife?
Author: Bruce Malone

The following is the paraphrased essence of on of the critical junctures in American history. The scene is the 1923 Scopes Monkey Trial, and defense attorney Clarence Darrow had goaded prosecuting attorney Williams Jennings Bryan to take the stand in defense of the Bible.

Mr. Bryan. the defense has one final question,' Where did Cain find a wife?'" "I don't know." " Could you repeat your answer Mr. Bryan? The entire nation is listening via radio broadcast and this is a pretty basic and simple question. Let me rephrase it. If, as the Bible claims, Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, and no other people existed, who did their son Cain find to marry?" "I don't know."

Darrow made Bryan appear foolish, because he did not know scripture well enough to defend the most basic of questions.

This trial marked a turning point in American education, because for the first time the Bible was openly ridiculed. Bryan's inability to answer simple and logical questions was one factor allowing the American educational establishment to accept evolution hook, line, and sinker, while rejecting the historical creation account of the Bible.

Even today most Christians do not know the answer to questions as basic as " Where did Cain find a wife?" The problem with not having reasonable answers to basic questions as basic questions is that it brings all if Christianity into question. Why should people believe in a God whom they cannot see, if believers in that God cannot answer life’s simplest questions about the past and our origin's?
The reason the answer to this question is not immediately apparent is that we have all been trained to think like evolutionists. Evolution was founded on a principle of modern geology called uniformitarianism. This is the belief that small changes over vast periods of time caused the massive geologic (and later Darwin added biological) changes we see around us. In essence, we are trained to believe that everything has essentially operated as we see it today. However, this is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that mankind was created perfect, without flaws. It was only after man's disobedience that imperfection entered God's creation. Thus mankind, as originally created, would not have had the myriad of genetic mistakes now present in our mistakes now present in our DNA. In opposition of what evolution teaches, mutations or mistakes on our DNA, do not lead to better and improved humans. These mistakes cause hundreds of debilitating illnesses and birth defects. The reason all of us are not born with enormous numbers of medical problems is because our genes are a combination of the characteristics of our parents. Only when both parents have the same mistake in their genes do their children manifest the resulting genetic problem.

Furthermore, these genetic mistakes accumulate and increase with time. In other words, the information in our DNA gets more garbled-it never increases in clarity. Since mistakes are accumulated in our DNA, it is logical to assume that as we go back in time there would be less mistakes. The reason brothers and sisters cannot marry today is because they are likely to have similar DNA errors leading to children with birth defects. However, there were no moral laws against children intermarrying until after the time of Moses. This was approximately 4,000 years ago and at least 2,000 years after the creation of mankind. Before that time sibling marriage was probably quite common. The Bible states that Adam and Eve had MANY sons and daughters. Jewish tradition suggested that they had 33 sons and 23 daughters! Cain merely married his sister.

The reason we don't realize this obvious answer is because we have been trained to believe things have always been the way they are today. The past, and the present, becomes far more understandable as we view it from a Biblical perspective. This viewpoint acknowledges that the past, has at times, been very different than the present.

[airIam2worship]

Where Did Cain Find His Wife?
Author: Bruce Malone

The following is the paraphrased essence of on of the critical junctures in American history. The scene is the 1923 Scopes Monkey Trial, and defense attorney Clarence Darrow had goaded prosecuting attorney Williams Jennings Bryan to take the stand in defense of the Bible.

Mr. Bryan. the defense has one final question,' Where did Cain find a wife?'" "I don't know." " Could you repeat your answer Mr. Bryan? The entire nation is listening via radio broadcast and this is a pretty basic and simple question. Let me rephrase it. If, as the Bible claims, Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, and no other people existed, who did their son Cain find to marry?" "I don't know."

Darrow made Bryan appear foolish, because he did not know scripture well enough to defend the most basic of questions.

This trial marked a turning point in American education, because for the first time the Bible was openly ridiculed. Bryan's inability to answer simple and logical questions was one factor allowing the American educational establishment to accept evolution hook, line, and sinker, while rejecting the historical creation account of the Bible.

Even today most Christians do not know the answer to questions as basic as " Where did Cain find a wife?" The problem with not having reasonable answers to basic questions as basic questions is that it brings all if Christianity into question. Why should people believe in a God whom they cannot see, if believers in that God cannot answer life’s simplest questions about the past and our origin's?
The reason the answer to this question is not immediately apparent is that we have all been trained to think like evolutionists. Evolution was founded on a principle of modern geology called uniformitarianism. This is the belief that small changes over vast periods of time caused the massive geologic (and later Darwin added biological) changes we see around us. In essence, we are trained to believe that everything has essentially operated as we see it today. However, this is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that mankind was created perfect, without flaws. It was only after man's disobedience that imperfection entered God's creation. Thus mankind, as originally created, would not have had the myriad of genetic mistakes now present in our mistakes now present in our DNA. In opposition of what evolution teaches, mutations or mistakes on our DNA, do not lead to better and improved humans. These mistakes cause hundreds of debilitating illnesses and birth defects. The reason all of us are not born with enormous numbers of medical problems is because our genes are a combination of the characteristics of our parents. Only when both parents have the same mistake in their genes do their children manifest the resulting genetic problem.

Furthermore, these genetic mistakes accumulate and increase with time. In other words, the information in our DNA gets more garbled-it never increases in clarity. Since mistakes are accumulated in our DNA, it is logical to assume that as we go back in time there would be less mistakes. The reason brothers and sisters cannot marry today is because they are likely to have similar DNA errors leading to children with birth defects. However, there were no moral laws against children intermarrying until after the time of Moses. This was approximately 4,000 years ago and at least 2,000 years after the creation of mankind. Before that time sibling marriage was probably quite common. The Bible states that Adam and Eve had MANY sons and daughters. Jewish tradition suggested that they had 33 sons and 23 daughters! Cain merely married his sister.

The reason we don't realize this obvious answer is because we have been trained to believe things have always been the way they are today. The past, and the present, becomes far more understandable as we view it from a Biblical perspective. This viewpoint acknowledges that the past, has at times, been very different than the present.

Amen PR, This is a subject that most people wouldn't know the answer to. Others are afraid of answering because they are not prepared to face questions. The Bible states that Eve bore Cain, but the Bible does not tell us how many other children (daughters) Eve had after Cain was born and before Abel was born.
When Cain left he took his wife with him, his wife was one of his sisters. Just as the article you posted states, humanity at that time was so close to perfection as far as their genes and physical makeup was concerned that there were no flaws. Adam was not born of a man, Cain was the very first man to be born of a human, making him the very first generation of humanity.

[Soldier4Christ]

Evolution and Christianity Mix like Oil and Water

Francis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgement of God, the present could not adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry.

Today's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that "truth" exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God's intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility.

Truth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man's interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation.

The reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way:

   1. The bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum.
   2. The God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27)
   3. Would this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us ?
   4. Belief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealing with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.

There is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement.

[airIam2worship]

Hey PR, how come we got the Jesus Papers on 2 separate threads?

[Soldier4Christ]

Because people don't look to see if it has been posted on already and make a new post on themselves.

I'll put them together.