Dinosaur Track Field Trip

 

Dino Trackway 1 - GatewayLast month I had an opportunity to give some creation presentations at a church in Gateway, Colorado relating to dinosaurs and evidence for the Flood. Afterwards, we took an excursion to a dinosaur trackway which is found on a sandstone layer in the mountains between Gateway, Colorado and Moab, Utah. The question that was posed to me, as a geologist, was how they were made and then preserved. The first thing I jokingly told them is that the dinosaur must have weighed an awful lot to sink into solid rock. I followed that up with a more likely scenario that the layer had to have been still wet sand when the dinosaur walked across it and left his footprints.

Evidently, the dinosaur left the footprints in the sand shortly before a mud layer quickly filled in the trackway. Otherwise the tracks would have been quickly washed away. Further mud and sand layers would have subsequently been deposited above that to a great depth. Minerals from the body of water above would have cemented the mud and sand grains to form mudstone and sandstone.  Later geologic uplift and erosion would eventually expose the layer of sandstone. The mudstone in the track, being softer, washed away leaving the dinosaur imprints for us to see today.

Dino Trackway 2 - GatewayWhen I think of all that wet sand and the huge amount of mud and sand layers deposited above it, it speaks to me about events one might expect to occur during the Biblical Flood. Perhaps the dinosaurs were trying to escape rising Flood waters as they left the tracks, then further catastrophic deposition of layers buried everything.  Later, as the Bible indicates in Psalm 104, the mountains rose up and the valleys sank down. That caused the layers above the trackway to be revealed once again for all of us to enjoy on a field trip.

 

Dave Nutting

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

Elements of Life – Creation Perspective

The Magnificent Earth

Creation Answer:

God created the Earth before the sun, moon, and stars, and  so the earth is very unique. He created the sun and the moon specifically to be perfect for the life that He created on the earth. The earth is perfect for life, especially compared to other planets. The earth is so perfect that naturalists have to make countless assumptions, making it harder to believe their story than to accept God and His record of history.

God created and placed the elements just the way He wanted them – to give Him glory. There is no way for naturalism to explain why physics and the elements work the way they do. Renowned physicist James Clark Maxwell states that “there are immense numbers of other atoms of the same kind [throughout the universe]…Each is physically independent of all the others…We are then forced to look beyond them to some common cause or common origin [i.e. supernatural creation] to explain why this singular relation of quality exists.” His words still hold true that there needs to be a cause for the laws and structure of our universe.[i]

Currently, “there’s one thing on which most geochemists and astronomers agree: The celestial pantry is now empty of a key ingredient in the recipe for Earth.”[ii] This is saying that the origin of water on earth is still unknown. Water could not have survived the conditions in space and the hot early earth; it would have been burned up and lost to space. It has long been thought that water has come from comets shortly after the majority of the earth had accumulated, but recent studies of the water on comets show that they have a heavier water molecule. So those comets could not have contributed the majority of the water to the earth, because making the earth’s oceans from those comets would have been like “trying to make a low-fat dessert from heavy cream.”[iii]

“Scientists don’t really understand why various objects have different amounts of heavy water…People generally think that objects which formed further from the Sun should have more heavy water, but the new measurements don’t really fit.”[iv] Scientists estimate that “probably less than 15 percent” of the earth’s oceans could have come from comets or other space objects, although there may be evidence that some comets or other objects may in fact have the correct water for the earth.[v] Some scientists conjecture that “if existing objects in space couldn’t have combined to make Earth’s unique mix of water and other elements, the planet must have formed from—and entirely depleted—an ancient supply of water-rich material that has no modern analog.”[vi] This means that there is no evidence of that hypothetical material that preserved the water during the formation of the earth.

“Water isn’t the only matter on our planet today that seems unlikely to have formed at Earth’s proximity to the sun. There are also compounds and elements that readily vaporize, including chemically inert noble gases, such as argon, krypton, and xenon, and the elements nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen.” Osmium should have sunk towards the center of the earth early on in the earth’s formation, but yet it is found in the crust of the earth and the osmium that is found, does not match the osmium isotopes found on meteorites.[vii]

There are other planets and moons in our solar system that are perplexing as to how they have (or still have) the elements they currently do. Mercury, for example, should not be as dense as it is, so naturalists hypothesize that a large impact must have brought heavier material while stripping the light material away from the planet. There is no evidence of this kind of impact.[viii]

Enceladus geysers - Public Domain

Enceladus geysers

“Evolutionary models predicted that Jupiter would lack certain elements: argon, krypton, xenon, nitrogen, and others. But it turns out that Jupiter has lots of these elements.” Saturn’s largest moon, Titan, “has an atmosphere of mostly Nitrogen and Methane. Sunlight breaks methane down…Titan’s methane would only last for a few million years, not 4.5 billion years. However there is still methane there today…If Titan were really billions of years old, it would have…a source of new methane [and] lots of accumulated ethane…They have found potential lakes of methane and ethane, but at most only 1/10 of what it should have…They have only found 4 craters on Titan meaning that it is really young.”[ix] Another challenging moon of Saturn is Enceladus, which has a geyser on its south pole, but it should be “cold, old, and dead.”[x]

Jupiter’s moon, Io, is very volcanically active, which is a huge challenge for old age views. It puts off a tremendous amount of heat and material and simply would not be like that after billions of years. Callisto is also very geologically active, but shouldn’t be.[xi]

Also, the “naturalistic theory did not expect a uniform atomic nature of matter. ‘The relative abundances of the various isotopes of different elements are repeatedly found in similar ratios in stars, in the interstellar medium, in meteorite fragments and in the earth’s crust. The similarity of these ratios cannot be accidental, and the detailed explanation of the hundreds of known abundance ratios provides a severe task for the theory of stellar evolution.’”[xii] “In a similar vein, Gamow, a prime originator of big bang theory, also claimed ‘Relative abundances of elements [throughout the cosmos] have been exhaustively studied. … The most important result of these studies is the fact that the chemical composition of the universe is surprisingly uniform [emphasis in original].’ The interstellar medium and the intergalactic medium have D/H [Deuterium to Hydrogen] abundance ratios that do not fit into conventional NST [Nucleosynthesis Theory].”[xiii]

“It has long been claimed that big bang theory correctly predicted the 3:1 abundance of H to He in the universe. This is not true. The H/He ratio was known before big bang NST was conceived. The theory has been modified to fit the facts.” Therefore, these were not “predictions, but merely adjustments of theory (‘retrodictions’) to accommodate current data.” Also, “the belief in dark matter is at least partly due to retro-fitting big bang theory to the observed H/He cosmic abundance ratio.”[xiv]

“Other long-standing difficulties are the deuterium synthesis problem, and the overage of Population I stars. Neither has stellar NST actually explained the origin of the elements. The elements in their existence and abundances continue to point to creation.”[xv]

Radioactive decay of elements has been assumed to be constant. There are many observations that confirm this, but as more research is taking place, there are more reasons to be skeptical of that assumption. Rocks can be accurately dated only if: 1) the initial conditions are assumed correctly; 2) the elements have remained the same (they cannot come and go within the rock); and 3) the decay rate is and has remained constant.[xvi]

Some scientists are observing that radioactive decay rates may be faster the closer you get to the sun (or due to solar flares) – possibly because of more neutrinos or some other unknown particles coming from the sun.[xvii] Neutrinos can also originate from nuclear reactions in the earth or from other sources in the galaxy, both of which could affect the decay rates.[xviii] Some experiments are starting to show that under certain conditions (temperature, specific ionized states, and chemical environment), some decay rates are up to billions of times faster than normally observed.[xix]

As radioactive decay occurs, a common by-product is helium. Therefore helium is created within rocks and the rate that helium leaves those rocks has been observed and calculated. But if the earth were old, there should be much less helium in these rocks. This should contribute to more helium being in the atmosphere. Helium does escape the earth’s atmosphere, but that rate is less than the amount that is coming out of the rocks. This means that there should be more helium in the atmosphere, but there is not, and Hourglass and bookso this evidence shows that the atmosphere can be no more than 2 million years old.[xx] And actually “helium diffuses so rapidly that all the helium should have leaked out [of the rocks] in less than 100,000 years.”[xxi] There is even Carbon-14 in coal, fossils, and diamonds, which should have decayed beyond detection by now and thus is evidence that these items are not millions of years old.[xxii]

The most challenging aspect for naturalism is that it has an almost impossible amount of variables and details to work out in their theories. They bear the burden of proof to show more evidence that will prove answers beyond a reasonable doubt for the many necessary processes for their theory to be true. Naturalists have a lot of challenging questions to answer. Consider even how they claim that the earth gained its oxygen from cyanobacteria around 2.45 billion years ago during the Great Oxidation Event, “but mysteries remain. What occurred 2.45 billion years ago that enabled cyanobacteria to take over? What were oxygen levels at that time? Why did it take another one billion years—dubbed the “boring billion” by scientists—for oxygen levels to rise high enough to enable the evolution of animals? Most important, how did the amount of atmospheric oxygen reach its present level? ‘It’s not that easy why it should balance at 21 percent rather than 10 or 40 percent,’ notes geoscientist James Kasting of Pennsylvania State University. ‘We don’t understand the modern oxygen control system that well.’”[xxiii] Everything in this complex story, billions of years long, with very little observation and experimentation is a rough guess, very speculative and worthy of healthy skepticism.

 

What the Bible Says: Gen 1-2

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.



[i] Maxwell, J., Atom; in: Encyclopedia Britannica 3:36–49, 1878; p. 49.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[ii] Ben Harder, Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s oceans come from the heavens?, Science News, Volume 161, No. 12, March 23, 2002, p. 184, Science News Online, http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/water_for_the_rock.html, accessed June 30, 2014.

[iii] Ben Harder, Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s oceans come from the heavens?, Science News, Volume 161, No. 12, March 23, 2002, p. 184, Science News Online, http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/water_for_the_rock.html, accessed June 30, 2014.

[iv] Holly Hight, Comets were responsible for Earth’s oceans, October 6, 2011, Cosmos Online, http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/comets-were-responsible-earths-oceans/, accessed June 30, 2014.

[v] Kimberly M. Burtnyk, Did Comets bring water to Earth?, June 13, 2012, EarthSky, http://earthsky.org/space/did-comets-bring-water-to-earth, accessed June 30, 2014.

[vi] Ben Harder, Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s oceans come from the heavens?, Science News, Volume 161, No. 12, March 23, 2002, p. 184, Science News Online, http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/water_for_the_rock.html, accessed June 30, 2014.

[vii] Ben Harder, Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s oceans come from the heavens?, Science News, Volume 161, No. 12, March 23, 2002, p. 184, Science News Online, http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/water_for_the_rock.html, accessed June 30, 2014.

[viii] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[ix] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[x] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xi] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xii] Harwit, M., Astrophysical Concepts, Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, p. 304, 1982.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xiii] Gamow, G., The Creation of the Universe, Mentor Books, New York, p. 49, 1952.

Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xiv] Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xv] Jonathan Henry, The elements of the universe point to creation: Introduction to a critique of nucleosynthesis theory, August 2006, Journal of Creation 20(2):53-60, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-elements-of-the-universe-point-to-creation#endRef106, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xvi] Mike Riddle, Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?, October 4, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/does-radiometric-dating-prove-the-earth-is-old/, accessed June 30, 2014.

[xvii] Dan Stober, The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements, August 23, 2010, Stanford News, http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html, accessed June 30, 2014.

[xviii] Emil Silvestru, Neutrinos – the not-so-neutral particles, December 2010, Journal of Creation 24(3):13-14, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/neutrinos-not-so-neutral, accessed June 30, 2014.

[xix] John Woodmorappe, Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory, August 2001, Journal of Creation 15(2):4-6, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/billion-fold-acceleration-of-radioactivity-demonstrated-in-laboratory, accessed June 30, 2014.

Tas Walker, Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment, April 2000, Journal of Creation 14(1):4-5, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment, accessed June 30, 2014.

[xx] Jonathan Sarfati, Blowing old-earth belief away: Helium gives evidence that the earth is young, June 1998, Creation 20(3):19-21, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/blowing-old-earth-belief-away-helium, accessed June 30, 2014.

[xxi] Andrew Snelling, #6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks: 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth, September 11, 2012, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive-rocks/, accessed June 30, 2014.

[xxii] Andrew Snelling, #7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds: 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth, September 11, 2012, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/7-carbon-14-in-fossils-coal-and-diamonds/, accessed July 17, 2014.

Andrew Snelling, Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds: An Evolution Dilemma, December 8, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-in-fossils-and-diamonds/, accessed June 30, 2014.

Gary Bates, Flood Fossils: A stunning new book with family friendly, groundbreaking creationist research will excite many, July 17, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/flood-fossils-book, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xxiii] David Biello, The Origin of Oxygen in Earth’s Atmosphere, August 19, 2009, Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere/, accessed June 30, 2014.

Elements of Life – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

The Earth is a unique place that is not poisonous to life, but has all the resources we need to survive… plus so much more. Why does the earth have all of the elements that it does? How were all of the different elements created? Do the other planets have the same elements? Were there heavier elements on the earth long ago that have radioactively decayed over time?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

The Big Bang produced hydrogen, helium, and lithium, which would eventually condense into stars, and as time went on, many other elements were formed within these stars. Every element heavier than iron has been produced by supernovas, or exploding stars, since these elements need increased amounts of energy for production. As the universe has aged, these elements have been propagated throughout the universe, including the dust cloud that will condense and form our sun and planets. If our solar system were located elsewhere in the Milky Way Galaxy, then Earth would not have acquired the same elemental composition that it has today. The Earth formed around the recently condensed sun as rocky material clumped together, cleaning up its orbital path around the sun. There are 92 naturally occurring elements that compose the earth and these elements bond to form a vast array of minerals.[i]

“Scientists at the Carnegie Institution have found that the mineral kingdom co-evolved with life, and that up to two thirds of the more than 4,000 known types of minerals on Earth can be directly or indirectly linked to biological activity. The finding, published in American Mineralogist, could aid scientists in the search for life on other planets.”[ii] Clumping material, like asteroids, in the universe appear to have around 60 different types of minerals. Planets with volcanism and water can have up to around 500 different minerals, “however, only on Earth – at least in our solar system – did mineral evolution progress to the next stages.” The activity of the tectonic plates on Earth add to the amount of mineral types, but “of the approximately 4,300 known mineral species on Earth, perhaps two-thirds of them are biologically mediated,” and also “principally a consequence of our oxygen-rich atmosphere.” “For at least 2.5 billion years, and possibly since the emergence of life, Earth’s mineralogy has evolved in parallel with biology…One implication of this finding is that remote observations of the mineralogy of other moons and planets may provide crucial evidence for biological influences beyond Earth.”[iii]

aEarth&planetsA few of the planets in our solar system have some of the same elements as earth, like oxygen, magnesium, calcium, and aluminum. Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements, but without the protection of an atmosphere, it would easily be blown away. Hydrogen is crucial to life, as it is essential for water and water is essential for the evolution of life. The planets and other objects in our solar system should be of similar composition, since they all formed from the same dust cloud, but as the dust cloud was forming many of the lighter elements were blown further from the sun, resulting in the rocky terrestrial planets closer to the sun and the larger gas planets much farther out.

We observe that the radioactive decay of heavier elements to lighters element occurs constant rates. Because the decay rates are constant and known, the ages of rocks, materials, and artifacts can be calculated with certainty. Radiometric dating methods have been confirmed as consistent based on archaeological, archaeoastronomical, geological, and biological research.[iv]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.



[i] Lisa Gardiner, Elements in the Earth’s Crust, last modified November 13, 2007, Windows to the Universe, http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/geology/crust_elements.html, accessed July 17, 2014.

[ii] Astrobio, Earth’s Mineral Evolution: Mineral Kingdom Has Co-Evolved with Life, November 14, 2008, Astrobiology Magazine, http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/geology/earths-mineral-evolution/, accessed June 30, 2014.

[iii] Astrobio, Earth’s Mineral Evolution: Mineral Kingdom Has Co-Evolved with Life, November 14, 2008, Astrobiology Magazine, http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/geology/earths-mineral-evolution/, accessed June 30, 2014.

Elizabeth Howell, Why Complex Mineral Surfaces Could Be Indications of Life, June 9, 2014, Astrobiology Magazine, http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/complex-mineral-surfaces-indications-life/, accessed June 30, 2014.

[iv] Christopher Gregory Weber, Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating, Spring 1982, Vol 3, Num 2, Pages 23-29, http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating, accessed July 17, 2014.

Our Sun – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

As the Bible records, God created the sun on day 4… after the earth. God created the lights in the heavens (including the sun) for signs, seasons, days and years and to give light on the earth.  (Gen 1:14-15) The sun also declares the glory of God. (Psalm 19:1) The sun causes different climates and weather patterns and even “plays a major role in producing clouds.”[i] There are many factors about the sun that make it very important for life on earth.[ii] Naturalistic methods say that the sun is 4.6 billion years old, but that result is based on assumptions about how much hydrogen has fused into helium. Naturalists have to take these results on faith that their assumptions are correct, whereas creationists have faith in the Bible and that God made the sun with the composition of elements that He wanted.[iii]

Many say that our sun is very average and normal. Cosmologist Carl Sagan said, “Where are we? Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.”[iv] Ph.D. astronomer Theodore P. Snow stated, “Our star, the sun, is rather ordinary…in many respects then, the sun is a very run-of-the-mill entity.”[v]

In reality, our sun is “brighter than about 85 percent of all stars, and it has more mass than about 90 percent…Our sun is very stable and has small flares, if the flares were bigger they could rip away our atmosphere and fry the earth…A superflare could be deadly, but there is no evidence of any superflares…our sun is very unusual because of this.”[vi] “Sun-like stars normally produce a bright superflare about once a century…a consensus is emerging that our sun is extraordinarily stable.”[vii] Hopefully this stability continues, because Earth is constantly threatened by solar activity which could do tremendous damage to electronics and communications systems, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sun on the OceanA great challenge to naturalistic models is that the sun needs to have been extraordinarily stable throughout its whole life. The young faint sun paradox explains that as the sun has aged, it should now be 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago, so consequently in the past it was dimmer and the earth would have been colder. Astrophysicist Danny Faulkner describes the problem that at 3.8 billion years ago the earth would have been an average temperature of -3° C, which is below freezing.[viii] “Simple energy-balance climate models of the Budyko/Sellers type predict that a small (2–5%) decrease in [current] solar output could result in a runaway glaciation on the Earth. But solar fluxes 25–30% lower early in the Earth’s history apparently did not lead to this result.”[ix] That would have been devastating for life as it was just starting to evolve.

These estimates are in stark contrast to the naturalistic hypotheses. “Geologists note that Earth’s rock record insists that Earth’s average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life.”[x] Naturalistic hypotheses say that “as new forms of life evolved, the mix of gases in Earth’s atmosphere gradually changed. Evolution proposes that the early atmosphere contained a greater amount of greenhouse gases (such as methane) than today. This would have produced average temperatures close to those today, even with a much fainter Sun. As the Sun gradually increased in luminosity, Earth’s atmosphere is supposed to have evolved along with it, so that the amount of greenhouse gases have slowly decreased to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity.”[xi] “While there is some tolerance for deviation, any prolonged deviation from ideal conditions could have led to catastrophic heating or cooling from which the Earth might not have recovered. Venus and Mars are possibly examples of each of these scenarios.”[xii] “The precise tuning of this alleged co-evolution is nothing short of miraculous.”[xiii]

“James Kasting stated in Nature: ‘Despite all these proposed warming mechanisms, there are still reasons to think that the faint young Sun problem is not yet solved.’ Alicia Newton writes in Nature Geoscience: ‘Challenges for each hypothesis remain, and are likely to remain for some time.’”[xiv]

That paradox is not the only challenge to the naturalistic models. Just like the sun, gas planets, like Jupiter and Neptune, also radiate heat and enough to challenge their 4.5 billion year history. With Jupiter and Neptune radiating more than twice the energy that they receive, they could not have lasted billions of years.[xv]

The sun rotates around its equator and the planets should have supposedly formed revolving around the sun’s equator as well (everything rotating in one disk), but the planets all go around the sun in a disk that is different from the sun’s rotation. This is a big challenge to the nebular theory, as a couple of scientists put it: “we may note that one difficulty common to all solar nebula theories concerns the rotation axis of the sun, which is at 7 degrees to that of the system as a whole. It is not feasible that the rotation axis of the central body could be so inclined to that of the disk or, alternatively, that planets produced within the disk could systematically depart so much from its plane.”[xvi]

The rotation rate of the sun is also a challenge in that it rotates too slowly, and thus, “the angular momentum of the sun is far too small to be consistent with an evolutionary origin.”[xvii] It works like this, “as skaters pull their arms in, they spin faster…When the skaters pull their arms in, the distance from the centre decreases, so they spin faster or else angular momentum would not stay constant [which it has to]. In the formation of our sun from a nebula in space, the same effect would have occurred as the gases allegedly contracted into the centre to form the sun. This would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly. Actually, our sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the sun. In fact, although the sun has over 99% of the mass of the solar system, it has only 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposed to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis. Evolutionists have tried to solve this problem, but a well-known solar-system scientist, Dr Stuart Ross Taylor, has said in a recent book, ‘The ultimate origin of the solar system’s angular momentum remains obscure.’”[xviii]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.



[i] How Clouds Form, August 13, 2013, Climate Education for K – 12, NC State University, https://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.cloudformation, accessed June 25, 2014.

[ii] Sun, 2014, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/sun/, accessed June 25, 2014.

Jason Lisle, Ph.D., The Solar System: The Sun, 2013, Acts & Facts 42(7):10-12, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/solar-system-sun/, accessed June 25, 2014.

[iii] Jonathan Sarfati, Age of the Sun, November 13, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/sun-age, accessed June 25, 2014.

[iv] Sagan, Carl, Cosmos, Episode 7, “The Backbone of Night”

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[v] Snow, T.P., Essentials of the Dynamic Universe, 1993, West Publishing Co, p. 256.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[vi] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[vii] Seife, Charles, “Thank Our Lucky Star,” 1999, New Scientist 2168:15.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[viii] Danny Faulkner, The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system, August 2001, Journal of Creation 15 (2):3-4, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-young-faint-sun-paradox-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system, accessed June 20, 2014.

[ix] Caldiera, K. and Kasting, J.F., Susceptibility of the early Earth to irreversible glaciation caused by carbon dioxide clouds, Nature 359:226–228, 1992.Michael J. Oard, Is the faint young sun paradox solved?, August 2011, Journal of Creation 25(2):17-19, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox#txtRef5, accessed June 25, 2014.

[x] Danny Faulkner, Ph.D., The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System, 1998, Acts & Facts 27(6), Institute for Creation research, https://www.icr.org/article/429/, accessed June 25, 2014.

[xi] Danny Faulkner, Ph.D., The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System, 1998, Acts & Facts 27(6), Institute for Creation research, https://www.icr.org/article/429/, accessed June 25, 2014.

[xii] Danny Faulkner, Ph.D., The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system, August 2001, Journal of Creation 15(2): 3-4, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-young-faint-sun-paradox-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system, accessed June 25, 2014.

[xiii] Danny Faulkner, Ph.D., The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System, 1998, Acts & Facts 27(6), Institute for Creation research, https://www.icr.org/article/429/, accessed June 25, 2014.

[xiv] Kasting, J.F., Faint young sun redux, Nature 464:688, 2010.

Newton, A., Warming the early Earth, Nature Geoscience 3:458, 2010.

Michael J. Oard, Is the faint young sun paradox solved?, August 2011, Journal of Creation 25(2):17-19, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox#txtRef5, accessed June 25, 2014.

[xv] Dr. Jason Lisle, Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe Through Biblical Glasses, Answers in Genesis – USA, Creation Library, DVD, 2006.

[xvi] Dormand, John R., and Woolfson, Michael M., The Origin of the Solar System: The Capture Theory, 1989, New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 48.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[xvii] Dr. Jason Lisle, Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe Through Biblical Glasses, Answers in Genesis – USA, Creation Library, DVD, 2006.

[xviii] Jonathan Sarfati, The sun: our special star, December 1999, Creation 22(1):27-31, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-sun-our-special-star, accessed June 25, 2014.

Our Sun – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

When you look at it, the sun, it seems very close. However, light from the sun takes 8 minutes to get from the sun to the earth. The sun is so big, you could take around one million earths and fit them into the size of the sun. The sun is the closest star to Earth at a distance of 93 million miles.[i] Our sun is considered an average star, although very special to our solar system in many ways. Not only does it provide light to the earth, it provides heat for the planet as well. How old is the sun? How did the sun form? How did the earth form around the sun? How has the sun changed over time?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Sun and Prominences Around 4.6 billion years ago, the sun was formed out of a huge cloud of dust and gas. Most of these gases were condensed into the center of the cloud, due to gravity and other external forces. The condensing of the gases within this cloud made it very hot and allowed the fusion reactions to begin, lighting up the sun and giving off the energy which is so essential for the earth as we know it. The leftover matter of this cloud, further away from the sun, coalesced into our planets.[ii]

The SunThe sun is the largest object in our solar system, but is simply referred to as, and rightfully so, an “ordinary” or “medium” sized star. The sun contains about 70% hydrogen and 28% helium and the last 2% is composed of heavier elements.[iii]  The age has been calculated to about 4.6 billion years based on the methods of helioseismology, which examines the rate of fusion today and determines how long the sun has been burning.[iv] Regions of the sun rotate around its axis at different rates, around its equator, the sun rotates every 25.4 days, but near the north and south poles it takes 36 days to rotate. At the core of the sun, temperatures can reach up to 28 million degrees Fahrenheit.

The sun is expected to be around for about 10 billion years. Since the sun is approximately 4.6 billion years old, it has used up about half of the hydrogen that it has in its core. Eventually, it is going to run out of hydrogen, but before that it will swell into a red giant star which will then envelope and destroy the whole earth.

An interesting conundrum, the young sun paradox, was first brought up by Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972, which says that the sun was dimmer in the past and therefore the earth would have been colder. But geology has shown that the earth was warmer in the past than we would be anticipate, because, for the majority of its existence it has had liquid water. Complex interactions with larger oceans, less clouds, and life evolving (which influenced the gases of the atmosphere causing a greenhouse effect), kept the earth sufficiently warm and stable.[v] One researcher says, “we show that the paradox is definitely not as challenging as was believed over the past 40 years. While we can’t say definitively what the atmosphere looked like back then without more geological evidence, it is certainly not a stretch at all with our model to get a warm early Earth that would have been hospitable to life.”[vi]

From a naturalistic standpoint, the Sun’s Angular Momentum, or lack thereof, seems to be a challenge. The more mass in the center (like the sun), the faster it should spin, but we observe that the sun rotates very slowly. One hypothesis suggests that there was originally more mass in the center of our protostar, but during the T Tauri stage much of the mass was expelled from the center, slowing the inner rotation rate. Another hypothesis is that the planets may have migrated towards or away from the sun during their formation and thus changing the rotation rates. Some even suggest that an extra gas giant planet, or what makes up the Kuiper Belt, may have originally been closer to the sun, but may have been catastrophically expelled from the solar system.[vii]

During the developing solar system, there would have been an incredible amount of chaos; objects were impacting each other everywhere. The beginning of the solar system was very turbulent and catastrophic, but over time, the largest objects (now planets) gained dominance and cleaned up our solar system to make it the way it is today. Planets, or moons, rotating too slow or too fast or in strange directions or even revolving in random fashion is most certainly due to all of the tumultuous impacts and gravitational interactions of a vast myriad of early solar system objects. With so many variables, it is difficult (if not practically impossible) to give an exact answer to every strange movement in the solar system today, let alone the universe. However, scientists are constantly learning more and more and arriving at satisfactory answers. Our understanding will only get better. What should not happen is to simply lie down amidst the overwhelming amount of information and resort to saying, “oh, we can’t figure it out, so God just did it that way.” That perspective only impedes the progress of science.

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.



[i] Sun: Read More, last updated May 5, 2014, NASA, http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sun&Display=OverviewLong, accessed June 25, 2014.

[ii] Dr. Cathy Imhoff, The Sun, 2014, Scholastic, http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/sun-0, accessed June 25, 2014.

[iii] The Sun, 2013, Nine Planets, http://nineplanets.org/sol.html, accessed June 25, 2014.

[iv] Jonathan Sarfati, Age of the Sun, November 13, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/sun-age, accessed June 25, 2014.

[v] Andrea Thompson, Clouds May Hold Key to Why Early Earth Didn’t Freeze Over, March 31, 2010, Space.com, http://www.space.com/8118-clouds-hold-key-early-earth-didnt-freeze.html, accessed June 25, 2014.

“Why Earth is not an ice ball: Possible explanation for faint young sun paradox,” Purdue University, ScienceDaily, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530152034.htm, accessed June 25, 2014.

[vi] CU study shows how early Earth kept warm enough to support life, July 9, 2013, University of Colorado Boulder, http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/07/09/cu-study-shows-how-early-earth-kept-warm-enough-support-life, accessed June 25, 2014.

[vii] Origin of the Solar System, Geol212: Planetary Geology Fall 2014, University of Maryland, Department of Geology, http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/geol212/lectures/26a.html, accessed June 26, 2014.

Tobias Chant Owen, Solar System, last updated April 11, 2014, Encyclopaedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/553008/solar-system/242068/Solution-to-the-angular-momentum-puzzle, accessed June 26, 2014.

“Being a Dad Who Leads” Book Review

 

I am now officially a father of a sweet little boy and my wife and I are loving it. He is so precious to us. We have been so blessed by the generosity of others. Normally at baby showers, you get great stuff for the baby or for the mommy, but a couple of friends gave me, the daddy, a thoughtful gift. They gave me a book entitled, “Being a Dad Who Leads” by John MacArthur.

Being a Dad Who LeadsI was somewhat familiar with the author and pastor and so I was excited to dig into it, even though our baby was not even born yet. What I love about John MacArthur, remembering from one of his other books, is that he uses so much scripture in his writing and preaching… and he did not disappoint with this book.

In this book, MacArthur touched on a number of key passages and themes dealing with being a father. As men, we are to “love our wives, just as Christ also loved the church.” (Ephesians 5:25) We are called to be Godly examples and leading our wives and children in a way they will notice and hopefully even the outside world will notice. The family is the primary priority – above our work.  Being a Godly father is likened to Christ’s relationship to the church, and also as similar in role to a church leader, so it is important.

MacArthur also exposits the passage in Proverbs 7 about being wise and avoiding the seductress. From that passage, there is a lot of insight, advice, and guidelines for fathers to help train their children. MacArthur also describes the attributes and characteristics of the father in the prodigal son account (Luke 15:11-32) and how that represents God and is an example of how we are to be as fathers.

MacArthur encourages parents to continually share the gospel clearly. Over and over again, he refers back to Ephesians 6:4 which says, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” From this verse and MacArthur’s emphasis, I was encouraged to make every moment and every instance a learning experience to relate and teach God’s Word to myself, my wife, and my children. Every circumstance can be used to teach us and point us to God and His Word.

I was very blessed to already have received this book and to have had the opportunity to read it, since I am just starting out. I legitimately think that raising up men to be Godly leaders of their home can change our deteriorating culture. In fact, I may buy this book in large quantities to start giving away and I may even do a book study with the fathers around me. I am even considering including the young, single men around me that will someday be fathers. This is great teaching from God’s Word and it is crucial that we focus on His Word to make a difference in our families and community.

 

Brian Mariani

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

Star and Planetary Formation – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

In order for stars to start forming, there must be gas clouds that can be compressed. The possibilities for compression can be:

  • a nearby supernova (exploding star),
  • dust grains from a supernova that cool and compress the gas cloud,
  • colliding gas clouds, like galaxies colliding,
  • black holes, which may emit jets of high-speed material that will compress the gas cloud, or
  • radiation from other nearby stars may compress the gas cloud.

 

In each of those possibilities, “they all require stars to exist before more stars can be made.”[i] “First of all, if the collapsing cloud theory can’t even explain the sun alone, then it is doomed from the start. To form the sun, or any star, a cloud must be dense enough to collapse and compress the interior so that it becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to start.”[ii] “Interstellar gas clouds are too large and diffuse for gravity to overcome gas pressure. So they won’t collapse and form stars – they’ll disperse instead.”[iii] “The Butterfly Nebulaorigin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics.”[iv] “There are so many uncertainties in this picture that at present we do not really have a theory of star formation.”[v] “We’re starting from a shaky foundation…we don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.”[vi]

“Astronomers frequently report about ‘new stars’ or ‘young stars’ that they assume formed over the last few million years. Naturalistic astronomers would say that stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. No one has actually seen these stars form. They are assumed to be young because of their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form.”[vii]

“Evolutionary scientists would expect that in millions of years, dust very near the star would be driven away or would be vaporized…Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks.” They have “found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.’”[viii]

So can stars still form? “Some creation scientists might argue that stars could not form after the Creation Week. However, others would say that stars could form after the Creation Week, but would argue that the naturalistic origins theories accepted today are not adequate explanations of the process.”[ix]

Can planets form? Gas by nature, especially hot gas, wants to expand more than gravity will be able to hold it together, because gravity is a very weak force. One scientist says “talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn – the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass – and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.”[x] Gravity will not even be enough to keep two objects together when a collision happens. When two rocks hit each other, they will break up and fly away from each other unless it is the smallest collision possible (like a gentle side-swiping accident) or if there is magnetism involved. Gravity is not strong enough even to clump rocks together to make planets. Reading naturalistic explanations of the origin of stars and planets, one can easily see that gravity is the main hero of the plot, but gravity simply is not that mighty. “To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the solar system are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.”[xi]

Ultimately, stellar evolutionists have to make a lot of assumptions about the history of the universe, the solar system, the sun, the earth and so much more. Even studying the chemical composition of the Earth and the Sun has brought up challenges to the stellar evolution model. Some elements are created in stars like our sun, but elements heavier than iron are made and spread throughout the universe by supernovae (exploding stars). For our solar system to get the heavy elements that it currently has, many nearby stars must have exploded over billions of years to provide a rich dust cloud where our sun and solar system could form. Surprisingly, scientists have “found abundances of heavy elements” in old galaxies, but “the chemistry of galaxies should have been fairly primitive.”[xii]

Also surprising to secular scientists is that in studying the composition of the sun, they found different variations of oxygen and nitrogen in the sun as compared to the Earth and other objects. “These findings show that all solar system objects including the terrestrial planets, meteorites and comets are anomalous compared to the initial composition of the nebula from which the solar system formed.” In other words, our dust cloud (now solar system) should still have the same compositions, but that is not the case. NASA Genesis Mission investigator Kevin McKeegan says, “The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun — just how and why remains to be discovered.”[xiii]

Consider Mercury as another example. Since Mercury is so close to the center of the dust cloud (now the sun), it should not be that dense and it should not have sulfur, but it does. Mercury should not even have a magnetic field, but it does. In fact, magnetic fields all over the solar system are challenging to the stellar evolutionary worldview.[xiv]

There are even more examples that suggest that stellar evolution is not possible. The sun is tilted respective to the orbits of the planets, which should not be possible. Uranus and many of the moons in our solar system rotate the opposite way.[xv] The sun should be spinning much, much faster… but it does not. “Evolutionists have tried to solve this problem, but a well-known solar system scientist, Dr Stuart Ross Taylor, admitted when discussing the angular momentum problem that “a predictive theory of nebular evolution is still lacking.”[xvi]

According to the Bible, planets and stars were created on the fourth day of creation. “Although the Bible doesn’t specifically say ‘planets,’ it is correct to say that the Hebrew word translated “star” included the planets.”[xvii] God created the stars and planets, they couldn’t just form naturally. “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.” (Ps 19:1, NASB)

 

What the Bible Says: Psalm 19:1, Psalm 8:3, Gen 1:14-16 Gen 1:19

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.



[i] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[ii] Jonathan Sarfati, Solar system origin: Nebular hypothesis, July 2010, Creation 32(3): 34-35, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/nebular-hypothesis, accessed June 20, 2014.

[iii] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[iv] Charles J. Lada and Frank H. Shu, The Formation of Sunlike Stars, May 4, 1990, Science 248: 564

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[v] Middlehurst, Barbara M., and Aller, Lawrence H., Editors. Nebulae and Interstellar Matter. 1968. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 58.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[vi] Carlos Frenk, as quoted in Irion, Robert. “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” March 19, 2004, Science 303:1750.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[vii] Wayne Spencer, Star Formation and Creation: Can We See Stars Forming?, November 19, 2008, Answer in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/star-formation-and-creation/, accessed June 20, 2014.

[viii] Wayne Spencer, Star Formation and Creation: Can We See Stars Forming?, November 19, 2008, Answer in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/star-formation-and-creation/, accessed June 20, 2014.

[ix] Wayne Spencer, Star Formation and Creation: Can We See Stars Forming?, November 19, 2008, Answer in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/star-formation-and-creation/, accessed June 20, 2014.

[x] Richard A. Kerr, ‘A quickie birth for Jupiters and Saturns’, Science, Vol. 298, November 29, 2002, 1698-9.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xi] Sir Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution, p. 359.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol II Our Created Stars and Galaxies, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2012.

[xii] Keith Cooper, When Did the Universe Have the Right Stuff for Planets? September 4, 2012, Astrobiology Magazine, Space.com, http://www.space.com/17441-universe-heavy-metals-planet-formation.html, accessed June 20, 2014.

[xiii] Sun and planets constructed differently than thought, NASA mission suggests, June 24, 2011, NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory, ScienceDaily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623145430.htm, accessed June 20, 2014.

[xiv] Spike Psarris, Mercury: New Discoveries Delight Creationists, Creation Astronomy and Alpha Omega Institute, http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/MercuryNewDiscoveriesDelightCreationists.htm, accessed June 20, 2014.

[xv] Duane Gish, Ph.D., The Solar System – New Descoveries Produce New Mysteries, June 1974, Acts & Facts, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/solar-system-descoveries-produce-new-mysteries/, accessed June 20, 2014.

[xvi] Jonathan Sarfati, Solar system origin: Nebular hypothesis, July 2010, Creation 32(3): 34-35, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/nebular-hypothesis, accessed June 20, 2014.

[xvii] Ken Ham, “When Were Planets Created?”, Last Modified August 26, 2010, Answers in Genesis http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/kw/planets-created, Accessed December 2, 2012.

Star and Planetary Formation – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

There are countless stars in the universe and with each star, there could be many planets. How do stars form? How do rocky planets form and how do gas planets form? What causes stars and planets to form? Have we observed any form? How often should a star be born? How does this evidence affect the age estimates of our universe?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

“In the Milky Way today the average annual star formation rate is ten solar masses,” but it is thought to have been much higher in the past.[i] “Researchers still do not know the details of how clouds of gas and dust collapse to form stars, or why most stars form in groups, or exactly how planetary systems form.  Young stars within a star-forming region interact with each other in complex ways. The details of how they evolve and release the heavy elements they produce back into space for recycling into new generations of stars and planets remains to be determined through a combination of observation and theory.”[ii]

Somewhere, out there...All over the universe, nebulae (large gas clouds) and galaxies serve as stellar nurseries where stars are born. Complex interactions of gravity and other forces from nearby objects condense and collapse a gas cloud into a dense rotating sphere, which first becomes a protostar. The Hubble Space Telescope has captured places of dense, star-birthing areas, like the bright resonance ring within the NGC 3081 galaxy.[iii] Often radiation and compression waves from other stars will trigger further star formation in dense clouds of gas.[iv] In this dense, rotating protostar, the inside of this sphere heats up due to the increased pressure, which causes nuclear fusion (fusing hydrogen atoms together to make helium) to occur, which is the lighting up of the star. “Stars are responsible for the manufacture and distribution of heavy elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen.”[v]

Right after a star is formed there is still a lot of mass circling in a disc around it. In the Core Accretion Model, over millions of years, these bits of rocky, heavy elements slowly condense, collide and clump together due to gravity to form rocky (terrestrial) planets. In this model, lighter elements are blown further away from the sun and are therefore more dense and abundant to be able to condense into the gas planets. There must be great forces pushing the gas together since the force of the expansion of gas is greater than gravity and this must have happened very quickly, which is a challenge to the theory. The forces and speed of these rocky and gas planets must be just right or else the planets will spiral out of control and possibly into the sun. Early on in each planet’s formation, the moons would have been created by large impacts or by capturing other floating material in the early solar system.

Because of the challenges to the Core Accretion Model, the Disk Instability Model is becoming more popular and presents answers showing that the gases would coalesce very quickly to form gas planets even “in as little as a thousand years.” This model shows that “clumps of dust and gas are bound together early in the life of the solar system” and “they also quickly reach an orbit-stabilizing mass that keeps them from death-marching into the sun.”[vi]

h“Scientists think Earth started off as a waterless mass of rock. Radioactive materials in the rock and increasing pressure deep within the Earth generated enough heat to melt Earth’s interior, causing some chemicals to rise to the surface and form water, while others became the gases of the atmosphere. Recent evidence suggests that Earth’s crust and oceans may have formed within about 200 million years after the planet had taken shape.”[vii]

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 


[i] Keith Cooper, When Did the Universe Have the Right Stuff for Planets? September 4, 2012, Astrobiology Magazine, Space.com, http://www.space.com/17441-universe-heavy-metals-planet-formation.html, accessed June 20, 2014.

[ii] Webb Science: The Birth of Stars and Protoplanetary Systems, NASA, http://webb.nasa.gov/birth.html, accessed June 20, 2014.

[iii] Rob Garner and Brian Dunbar, Hubble Eyes Golden Rings of Star Formation, June 13, 2014, NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-eyes-golden-rings-of-star-formation/, accessed June 20, 2014.

[iv] Brian Dunbar and NASA Administrator, The Formation of Stars, March 22, 2014, NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1444.html, accessed June 20, 2014.

[v] Ruth Netting, Stars, May 14, 2014, NASA http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/how-do-stars-form-and-evolve/, accessed June 20, 2014.

[vi] Nola Taylor Redd, How Was Earth Formed?, January 8, 2013, Space.com, http://www.space.com/19175-how-was-earth-formed.html, accessed November 1, 2013.

[vii] Charles Q. Choi, Earth: Orbit, Composition, Atmosphere & Other Facts, November 15, 2010, Space.com, http://www.space.com/54-earth-history-composition-and-atmosphere.html, accessed June 20, 2014.

Horn Creek Creation Adventure Report

 

Horn Creek Ropes CourseMary Jo & I recently enjoyed conducting a family camp at Horn Creek Camp near Westcliffe, Colorado. It was our first year doing a Creation Adventure at this camp and everything went great. Families enjoyed the facilities including their lodge rooms, excellent meals, and the meeting room for our presentations. The activities were as intense or as laid back as each family desired.

From the comments we received, everyone benefitted from, and enjoyed, the Creation sessions. We had adult teaching sessions and a special kid’s programs as well.  Teens, as well as the younger ages, enjoyed hanging out with each other and playing some popular games during the evenings and after the sessions.  I would like to think they were discussing creation as they were hanging out, but I’m not betting on it.

For the action minded, there was a giant swing that got the adrenaline flowing for anyone. Also, white water rafting was enjoyed by all who participated. The river we Horn Creek Water Sliderafted is one of the most popular, as there is one rapid after another. Others went horseback riding or climbed a fabulous climbing wall. Families also enjoyed the group dynamic activities that made everyone work together.

The long water slide into the pool was a real attraction for younger children, teens, and even the adults.  Some also tried their hand at bowling, basketball, or carpet pool, but most ran out of time to do all the activities that were available during that week.

It was a great success and we look forward to doing it again at Horn Creek next year. Our tentative dates for you to put on the calendar are June 28 – July 3, 2015. Hope to see you there.

 

Dave Nutting

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

Our New Baby!

 

We have been anxiously awaiting the birth of our first baby. We did everything we thought that we could do to prepare for him or her (we didn’t know), as well as trying desperately to think through every decision so we could make the best and most God-glorifying decision. And we were doing good…we thought, but even with the best intentions, there is a fuzzy-line between trusting God and wanting it to go our way. We even developed our “birth plan” to be as natural, comfortable, and God-honoring.

We wanted to have our baby at the birth center in town and try to avoid the pressures of drugs and wires and protocol at the hospital. We thought that being in the birth center would be more comfortable, more convenient and possibly an opportunity to even witness. That was our desire.

40 weeks came and went and the days continued ticking by during the 41st week; we were concerned that we would not be able to have our baby as we wanted. We did almost everything to help our baby come along, but it liked its dark, warm, cozy little place within Mommy. We were now 42 weeks along and were finally forced to resign our desires and transfer to the hospital and have an induction with drugs… which we were desperately trying to avoid.

Our New BabyWithout going into gory details, we are now proud to announce that our baby boy, Caden David, was born late that night. He had a little trouble breathing at first and was in risk of infection. He had to spend that night in the NICU, but recovered very well.  We were able to rest that night as well and he was allowed to stay with us the next night. The hospital took great care of us and we were just sooo blessed by the lovely nurses that cared for us.

We don’t know how God used us there at the hospital to minister to them, but we felt very loved, cared for, and ministered to. God knew much better than we did that we needed to be in the hospital! God yet again protected and provided abundantly for us in that crazy process! We are now home, resting and praising God for our beautiful, healthy baby boy. God knows everything, His will is better than ours, and he wants to bless us that we might glorify Him! Not to say that the road won’t be difficult, but well worth it!

 

26 Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?…31 Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ 32 For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.   -  Matt 6:26, 31-33

20 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.  -  Eph 3:20-21

 

Brian Mariani

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.