Science Disproves Evolution

Science only proves evolution more and more. I grow weary of the abundant use of syllogisms. They are misleading and manipulate people into accepting assumptions.

Strange Planets 1

Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved (a). One theory says planets formed when a star, passing near our Sun, tore matter from the Sun. More popular theories hold that the solar system formed from a cloud of swirling gas, dust, or larger particles. If the planets and their known moons evolved from the same material, they should have many similarities. After several decades of planetary exploration, this expectation is now recognized as false (b).

Each planet is unique. Similarities that would be expected if the planets had evolved from the same swirling dust cloud are seldom found. Yet most planetary studies begin by assuming that the planets evolved and are therefore similar. Typical arguments are as follows: “By studying the magnetic field (or any other feature) of Planet X, we will better understand how Earth’s magnetic field evolved.” Actually, each magnetic field is surprisingly different. “By studying Earth’s sister planet, Venus, we will see how plate tectonics shaped its surface and better understand how plate tectonics works on Earth.” It is now recognized that plate tectonics does not occur on Venus.

a. “...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.

“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.” Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution, 6[SUP]th[/SUP] edition (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 387.

“But if we had a reliable theory of the origin of planets, if we knew of some mechanism consistent with the laws of physics so that we understood how planets form, then clearly we could make use of it to estimate the probability that other stars have attendant planets. However, no such theory exists yet, despite the large number of hypotheses suggested.” R. A. Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 4.

“A great array of observational facts must be explained by a satisfactory theory, [on the evolution of the solar system] and the theory must be consistent with the principles of dynamics and modern physics. All of the hypotheses so far presented have failed, or remain unproved, when physical theory is properly applied.” Fred L. Whipple, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 243.

“Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the Solar System began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.

b. “I wish it were not so, but I’m somewhat skeptical that we’re going to learn an awful lot about Earth by looking at other planetary bodies. The more that we look at the different planets, the more each one seems to be unique.” Michael Carr, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “The Solar System’s New Diversity,” Science, Vol. 265, 2 September 1994, p. 1360.

“The most striking outcome of planetary exploration is the diversity of the planets.” David Stevenson, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, Ibid.

“Stevenson and others are puzzling out how subtle differences in starting conditions such as distance from the sun, along with chance events like giant impacts early in the solar system history, can send planets down vastly different evolutionary paths.” Kerr, Ibid.

“You put together the same basic materials and get startlingly different results. No two [planets] are alike; it’s like a zoo.” Alexander Dessler, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, Ibid., p. 1361.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html]

Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved (a). One theory says planets formed when a star, passing near our Sun, tore matter from the Sun. More popular theories hold that the solar system formed from a cloud of swirling gas, dust, or larger particles. If the planets and their known moons evolved from the same material, they should have many similarities. After several decades of planetary exploration, this expectation is now recognized as false (b).

Each planet is unique. Similarities that would be expected if the planets had evolved from the same swirling dust cloud are seldom found. Yet most planetary studies begin by assuming that the planets evolved and are therefore similar. Typical arguments are as follows: “By studying the magnetic field (or any other feature) of Planet X, we will better understand how Earth’s magnetic field evolved.” Actually, each magnetic field is surprisingly different. “By studying Earth’s sister planet, Venus, we will see how plate tectonics shaped its surface and better understand how plate tectonics works on Earth.” It is now recognized that plate tectonics does not occur on Venus.

a. “...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.

“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.” Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution, 6[SUP]th[/SUP] edition (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 387.

“But if we had a reliable theory of the origin of planets, if we knew of some mechanism consistent with the laws of physics so that we understood how planets form, then clearly we could make use of it to estimate the probability that other stars have attendant planets. However, no such theory exists yet, despite the large number of hypotheses suggested.” R. A. Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 4.

“A great array of observational facts must be explained by a satisfactory theory, [on the evolution of the solar system] and the theory must be consistent with the principles of dynamics and modern physics. All of the hypotheses so far presented have failed, or remain unproved, when physical theory is properly applied.” Fred L. Whipple, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 243.

“Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the Solar System began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.

b. “I wish it were not so, but I’m somewhat skeptical that we’re going to learn an awful lot about Earth by looking at other planetary bodies. The more that we look at the different planets, the more each one seems to be unique.” Michael Carr, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “The Solar System’s New Diversity,” Science, Vol. 265, 2 September 1994, p. 1360.

“The most striking outcome of planetary exploration is the diversity of the planets.” David Stevenson, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, Ibid.

“Stevenson and others are puzzling out how subtle differences in starting conditions such as distance from the sun, along with chance events like giant impacts early in the solar system history, can send planets down vastly different evolutionary paths.” Kerr, Ibid.

“You put together the same basic materials and get startlingly different results. No two [planets] are alike; it’s like a zoo.” Alexander Dessler, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, Ibid., p. 1361.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html]

According to these evolutionary theories:


Backward-Spinning Planets.All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus (c), and Pluto rotate backwards (d).

Backward Orbits.Each of the almost 200 known moons in the solar system should orbit its planet in the same direction, but more than 30 have backward orbits (e). Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

Tipped Orbits:
Moons. The orbit of each of these moons should lie very near the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the Earth’s moon, are in highly inclined orbits (f).
Planets.The orbital planes of the planets should lie in the equatorial plane of the Sun. Instead, the orbital planes of the planets typically deviate from the Sun’s equatorial plane by 7 degrees, a significant amount.

Angular Momentum.The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun (g).

c. Uranus’ spin axis is “tilted” 97.77°. In other words, Uranus spins on its side and slightly backwards. Evolutionists have incorrectly speculated that Uranus must have been tipped over by a giant impact. However, such an impact would not have changed the orbital planes of Uranus’ larger moons, which are also “tipped over.”

d. The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2003 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003), p. F2.

e. Ibid.

f. Ibid.

The Moon’s orbital plane is inclined 18.5° – 28.5° to the Earth’s equatorial plane. (The Moon’s orbital plane precesses between those values over an 18.6-year cycle.) This is a considerable inclination when one recognizes that the Moon possesses 82.9% of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. No other planet-satellite system comes close to this amount.

Theories that for centuries claimed to show how the Moon evolved can now be rejected because of this fact alone. A more recent theory claims that a Mars-size body collided with the early Earth and kicked up debris that formed the Moon. Ward and Canup acknowledge that:
“Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near,[less than 1°] the Earth’s equatorial plane.”William R. Ward and Robin M. Canup, “Origin of the Moon’s Orbital Inclination from Resonant Disk Interactions,” Nature, Vol. 403, 17 February 2000, p. 741.

Nevertheless, speculative ways to circumvent this problem continue to be suggested. Even if some theory could explain the Moon’s high orbital inclination and angular momentum, other problems remain. [See “Origin of the Moon” http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences9.html#wp1020197]

g. Lyttleton, p.16.

Fred Hoyle, The Cosmology of the Solar System (Hillside, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1979), pp. 11–12.

“One of the detailed problems is then to explain how the Sun itself acquires nearly 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum.”Frank D. Stacey, Physics of the Earth (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), p. 4.

Some have proposed transferring angular momentum from the sun to the planets by “magnetic linking.” McCrea states:
“However, I scarcely think it has yet been established that the postulated processes would inevitably occur, or that if they did they would operate with the extreme efficiency needed in order to achieve the required distribution of angular momentum.”William Hunter McCrea, “Origin of the Solar System,”Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), p. 8.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 43.

The amount of water on Earth greatly exceeds that known on or within any other planet in the solar system. Liquid water, which is essential for life to survive, has unique and amazing properties; it covers 70% of Earth’s surface. Where did all Earth’s water come from?

If the Earth and solar system evolved from a swirling cloud of dust and gas, almost no water would reside near Earth’s present orbit—or within 5 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun. (1 AU is the average Earth-Sun distance.) Any water (liquid or ice) that close to the Sun would vaporize and be blown by solar wind to the outer reaches of the solar system (a), as we see happening with water vapor in the tails of comets.

a. “Earth has substantially more water than scientists would expect to find at a mere 93 million miles from the sun.” Ben Harder, “Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s Oceans Come from the Heavens?” Science News, Vol. 161, 23 March 2002, p. 184.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences5.html]

For more than two centuries,textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment (a). If so, the heat released by the impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over (b). Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements such as gold would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface (c).

a.“The textbook view that the earth spent its first half a billion years drenched in magma could be wrong.”John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth?” Scientific American,Vol. 294, October 2005, p. 59.

b. “The kinetic energy (~5 x 10^[SUP]38[/SUP] ergs) released in the largest impacts (1.5 x 10^[SUP]27 [/SUP]g at 9 km/sec) would be several times greater than that required to melt the entire Earth.” George W. Wetherill, “Occurrence of Giant Impacts during the Growth of the Terrestrial Planets,” Science, Vol. 228, 17 May 1985, p. 879.

c. If gold were found only near volcanoes, then one might claim that gold was brought up to the Earth’s surface by volcanoes. However, gold is seldom found near volcanoes.

Suppose that extremely hot water (932°F or 500°C) circulated under the crust—a crust that had never been molten. Gold in high concentrations would go into solution. If the solution then escaped to the Earth’s surface, most gold would precipitate as the water’s pressure . If this happened, about 250 cubic miles of water must have burst forth to account for the gold found in just one gold mining region in Canada. [See Robert Kerrich, “Nature’s Gold Factory,” Science,Vol. 284, 25 June 1999, pp. 2101–2102.] If these ideal pressure-temperature conditions did not exist, even more water must come up faster to account for the Earth’s gold deposits. These are hardly the slow processes that evolutionists visualize. On pages 111–147 and 457–463, you will see how, why, and when vast amounts of hot water burst up through faults.

About 40% of all gold mined in the world is from the Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa. This gold, deposited in compressional fractures within the basin, precipitated from water whose temperature exceeded 300°C. [See A. C. Barnicoat et al., “Hydrothermal Gold Mineralization in the Witwatersrand Basin,” Nature,Vol. 386, 24 April 1997, pp. 820–824.]

Robert R. Loucks and John A. Mavrogenes, “Gold Solubility in Supercritical Hydrothermal Brines Measured in Synthetic Fluid Inclusions,” Science, Vol. 284, 25 June 1999, pp. 2159–2163.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences6.html]

Radioactive dating of certain zircon minerals also contradicts a molten Earth. Trace elements within those zircons show that the zircons formed on a cold Earth (less than 212°F) (d). However, based on radioactive dating, those zircons formed billions of years ago when, according to evolutionists, it should have been molten (exceeding 1,800°F)—an obvious contradiction. Either the molten Earth idea or the radioactive dating method must be wrong; perhaps both are wrong.

Meteorites contain much more of the element xenon than Earth’s surface rocks, relative to other noble (inert) gases such as helium, neon, and argon. Had Earth formed by meteoritic bombardment, Earth’s surface rocks would have a different composition, and our atmosphere would contain up to ten times more xenon than it has (e). If Earth did not evolve by meteoritic bombardment, it may have begun as one large body. [See “Melting the Inner Earth” on pages 573–576.]

d. John W. Valley, “A Cool Early Earth?” Scientific American, Vol. 294, October 2005, pp. 58–65.

e. “Meteorites, he notes, contain 10 times as much xenon, relative to other noble gasses, than occurs in Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, the relative abundance of xenon isotopes found in meteorites doesn’t jibe with the pattern found on Earth. If meteorites did deliver most of the water to our planet, they also would have provided xenon, and our atmosphere would have to have a very different composition, Owen maintains.”Ron Cowen, “Found: Primordial Water,” Science News, Vol. 156, 30 October 1999, p. 285.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences6.html]

Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from just the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting a star, such as our Sun. Orbiting particles should spiral into its star or be scattered or expelled from their orbit—not merge (accrete) to become a planet (a). Experiments have shown that colliding particles, instead of sticking together, almost always fragment.(b). (Similar difficulties exist in trying to form a moon from particles orbiting a planet.)

Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. “Growing a planet” by many small collisions will produce an almost non spinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling (c).

a. “Planet formation is a paradox: according to standard theory, dust grains orbiting newborn stars should spiral into those stars rather than accrete to form planets.” Philip Campbell, “Trap Holds Protoplanet Dust,” Nature, Vol. 498, 13 June 2013, p. 141.

Very special conditions are required to capture and then merge orbiting bodies. They are discussed more fully starting on page 292.

b. John F. Kerridge and James F. Vedder, “An Experimental Approach to Circumsolar Accretion,” Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), pp. 282–283.

“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.”Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54.

c. Tim Folger, “This Battered Earth,” Discover, January 1994, p. 33.

“‘We came to the conclusion,’ says Lissauer, ‘that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, [the observed]prograde rotation just can’t be explained,’ The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day.”Richard A. Kerr, “Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets,” Science,Vol. 258, 23 October 1992, p. 548.

Luke Dones and Scott Tremaine, “Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?” Science,Vol. 259, 15 January 1993, pp. 350–354.

Some believe that the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) gained their spins through a few very large and improbable impacts. However, this appeal to large or improbable impacts will not work for the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), which have the most spin energy. Such impacts on these gaseous planets would be even more improbable, because they move more slowly and are so far from the center of the solar system. Besides, impacts from large rocks would not account for the composition of the giant planets—basically hydrogen and helium.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences7.html]

The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons (d):

a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases—hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the giant planets.

b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, about ten or more times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates (e). (Jupiter’s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)

c. Stars like our Sun—even those which evolutionists say are young—do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter (f).

Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations (g). The Planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve. [See “Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?” on page 449.]

Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.

d. “Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.” George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.

“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.”Richard A. Kerr, “A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns,” Science, Vol. 298, 29 November 2002, p. 1698.

e. This idea has a further difficulty.If, as the solar system began to form, a large, rocky planet quickly formed near Jupiter’s orbit, why didn’t a rocky planet form in the adjacent asteroid belt where we see more than 200,000 rocky bodies (asteroids) today?

f. B. Zuckerman et al., “Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion around Young Stars,” Nature,Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, pp. 494–496.

g.“In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune],cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years,[what evolutionists believe is]the lifetime of the solar system. ‘Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ‘We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’”Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,” Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054.

Renu Malhotra, “Chaotic Planet Formation,” Nature, Vol. 402, 9 December 1999, pp. 599–600.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences7.html]

Planetary rings have long been associated with claims that planets evolved. Supposedly, after planets formed from a swirling dust cloud, rings remained, as seen around the giant planets: Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune (a). Therefore, some believe that because we see rings, planets must have evolved (b).

Actually, rings do not relate to a planet’s origin. Planetary rings form when material is expelled from a moon or asteroid passing near a giant planet. The material could be expelled by a volcano, a geyser, tidal effects, or the impact of a comet or meteorite.[SUP]c[/SUP] Debris that escapes a moon or asteroid because of its weak gravity and the giant planet’s gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished (or young), they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years.[SUP]d [/SUP]Because a planet’s gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moons—as evolutionists assert.

The rings of Saturn, Uranus, and Jupiter are forming today and steadily breaking up. Rings are not composed of debris remaining after planets evolved.

a. William K. Hartmann, Moons and Planets,3[SUP]rd[/SUP] edition (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993), p. 143.

b. Similar faulty logic claims that, because we see comets, asteroids, and meteoroids, the solar system must have evolved.

c. “Geysers on Enceladus replenish the E ring.”Richard A. Kerr, “At Last, a Supportive Parent for Saturn’s Youngest Ring,” Science, Vol. 309, 9 September 2005, p. 1660.

“Saturn’s moons are bombarded by comets or micro-meteoroids. Those collisions knock off ice particles and send them into orbit around Saturn, forming rings.” Ron Cowen, “Ring Shots,” Science News, Vol. 170, 21 October 2006, p. 263.

This has also been observed for Jupiter’s rings. Jupiter has a few moons large enough to be hit frequently by meteoroids or comets, small enough to have little gravity so the debris can escape the moon, and close enough to Jupiter that tidal effects can spread the moon’s debris into rings. [See Ron Cowen, “Mooning Over the Dust Rings of Jupiter,” Science News,Vol. 154, 12 September 1998, pp. 182–183. See also Gretchen Vogel, “Tiny Moon Source of Jupiter’s Ring,” Science, Vol. 281, 25 September 1998, p. 1951.]

d. “Yet nonstop erosion poses a difficult problem for the very existence of Saturn’s opaque rings—the expected bombardment rate would pulverize the entire system in only 10,000 years! Most of this material is merely redeposited elsewhere in the rings, but even if only a tiny fraction is truly lost (as ionized vapor, for example), it becomes a real trick to maintain the rings since the formation of the solar system[as imagined by evolutionists].” Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Ringed Planets: Still Mysterious—II,”Sky & Telescope,Vol. 69, January 1985, p. 22.

Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Saturn: Jewel of the Solar System,” The Planetary Report,July/August 1989, pp. 12–15.

Also, water in Saturn’s rings is rapidly ionized and transported along magnetic lines to certain latitudes on Saturn. The Hubble Space Telescope has detected this water concentration in Saturn’s atmosphere. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Slow Leak Seen in Saturn’s Rings,” Science,Vol. 274, 29 November 1996, p. 1468.]

Richard A. Simpson and Ellis D. Miner, “Uranus: Beneath That Bland Exterior,” The Planetary Report, July/August 1989, pp. 16–18.

“Saturn’s rings (as well as the recently discovered ring system around Uranus) are unstable, therefore recent formations.”S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky, “Comets and the Cosmogony of the Solar System,”Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, editor A. H. Delsemme (Toledo, Ohio: The University of Toledo, 1977), p. 473.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences8.html]

Evolutionary theories for the origin of the Moon are highly speculative and completely inadequate (a). The Moon could not have spun off Earth, because its orbital plane is too highly inclined. The Moon’s nearly circular orbit is also strong evidence that it was never torn from nor captured by Earth (b). If the Moon formed from particles orbiting Earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the Moon’s orbit; none are.

The once popular theory that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor is now largely rejected, because the rocks that astronauts brought back from the moon are too similar to those of Earth. The impactor’s material should have been quite different. (In Part II of this book, you will see why the loose rocks the astronauts brought back from the moon are so similar to Earth’s rocks (c). Those rocks came from Earth.) Had a Mars-size impact occurred, many small moons should have formed (d). Also, the impactor’s glancing blow would either be too slight to form our large Moon, or so violent that Earth would end up spinning too fast (e). Besides, part of Earth’s surface and mantle would have melted, but none of the indicators of that melting have been found (f). Small particles splashed from Earth would have completely melted, allowing any water inside them to escape into the vacuum of space. However, Apollo astronauts found on the Moon tiny glass beads that had erupted as molten material from inside the Moon but had dissolved water inside! The total amount of water that was once inside the moon probably equaled that in the Caribbean Sea (g). Finally, a Mar-size impactor would heat up and evaporate much, if not all, of Earth’s surface water. Earth would likely have experienced a runaway greenhouse effect, making earth permanently uninhabitable. [Page 580 explains aspects of this problem.]These explanations have many other problems.

Understanding them caused one expert to joke, “The best explanation [for the Moon] was observational error—the Moon does not exist (h).” Similar difficulties exist for evolutionary explanations of the other (almost 200) known moons in the solar system.

But the Moon does exist. If it was not pulled or splashed from Earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one hypothesis remains: the Moon was created in its present orbit.[See “Evolving Planets?” on page 31, and “Moon Recession,”“Moon Dust and Debris,”and “Hot Moon” on page 41.]

a. “The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative.” Robert C. Haymes, Introduction to Space Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), p. 209.

On 10 November 1971, Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel prize-winning chemist and lunar scientist, stated: “I do not know the origin of the moon, I’m not sure of my own or any other’s models, I’d lay odds against any of the models proposed being correct.” Robert Treash, “Magnetic Remanence in Lunar Rocks,” Pensee,Vol. 2, No. 2, May 1972, p. 22.

“In astronomical terms, therefore, the Moon must be classed as a well-known object, but astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from. This is particularly embarrassing, because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme.”David W. Hughes, “The Open Question in Selenology,” Nature, Vol. 327, 28 May 1987, p. 291.

b. Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 77–79.
M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Origin of the Moon,” Science, Vol. 216, 7 May 1982, pp. 606–607.

“If the Moon had separated from the Earth, it would either have broken away completely or returned, but it could not have gone into orbit.” Stacey, p. 38.

c. “The giant impact has major problems. It doesn’t produce the moon as seen.” David J. Stevenson, as quoted by Daniel Clery, “Impact Theory Gets Whacked,” Science, Vol. 342, 11 October 2013, p. 184.

“The moon rocks, however, showed [oxygen isotope] ratios markedly similar to those of rocks from Earth. ‘The moon and Earth are indistinguishable on the oxygen isotope plot,’ Melosh said. The isotopes of other elements told the same story.” Jay Melosh, as quoted by Daniel Clery, Ibid.

d. “We conclude that an Earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met.”Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, “Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk,” Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427.

e. “...no reasonable means to rid the Earth/Moon system of this excess angular momentum has yet been proposed.”Shigeru Ida et al., “Lunar Accretion from an Impact-Generated Disk,” Nature,No. 2, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, p. 357.

f. “A collision big and hot enough to yield the moon’s magma ocean would have melted at least part of Earth’s surface as well. But geologists could not find any evidence that the mantle had ever melted. If it had, they expected to find that iron-loving elements such as nickel, tungsten, and cobalt had been drawn from Earth’s upper layers into its iron core. Instead, the concentration of iron-loving elements, called siderophiles, remains relatively high in Earth’s mantle. And other elements that should have segregated in a liquid mantle were instead commingled.”Karen Wright, “Where Did the Moon Come From?” Discover, Vol. 24, February 2003, pp. 65–66.

g. “This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says[Erik]Hauri. ‘It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water,’ he says. ‘That’s a really, really difficult knot to untie.’”Nell Greenfieldboyce, quoting Erik Hauri, “Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past,” Glass Beads From Moon Hint Of Watery Past : NPR, 12 July 2008. [See Endnote 66 on page 318.]

h. Jack J. Lissauer, “It’s Not Easy to Make the Moon,” Nature,Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, pp. 327–328.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences9.html]

God created man from the dust/dirt of the earth depending on which bible
science/evolution says the death of a star brings new life stardust landing on a planet. Does science math engineering have apart in his creations. Were the ancients to young in knowledge to understand these things we know today and teached in a way they could. Does a seed evolve into a tree or science

There is no evidence supporting evolution. Instead, the evidence supports creation.

Evolutionists claim the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4.6 billion years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun. Colliding asteroids also would create dust particles that, over millions of years, would spiral in toward the Sun. (To understand why, see "Poynting-Robertson Effect" In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 89.�� Poynting-Robertson Effect)

Particles should still be falling into the Sun’s upper atmosphere, burning up, and giving off an easily measured, infrared glow. Measurements taken during the solar eclipse of 11 July 1991, showed no such glow (a). So the assumed “millions of years” and this explanation for the solar system’s origin are probably wrong.

Disks of gas and dust sometimes surround stars. That does not mean planets are forming in those disks. Some disks formed from matter suddenly expelled from the star (b). Other disks formed from impact debris or other matter near the star. Early astronomers called the disks planetary nebula, because they mistakenly thought they contained evolving planets.

a. “For decades, astronomers have speculated that debris left over from the formation of the solar system or newly formed from colliding asteroids is continuously falling toward the sun and vaporizing. The infrared signal, if it existed, would be so strong at the altitude of Mauna Kea [Hawaii], above the infrared-absorbing water vapor in the atmosphere, that the light-gathering power of the large infrared telescopes would be overkill....In the case of the infrared search for the dust ring, [Donald N. B.] Hall [Director of the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy] was able to report within days that ‘the data were really superb.’ They don’t tell an entirely welcome story, though. ‘Unfortunately, they don’t seem to show any dust rings at all.’ ”Charles Petit, “A Mountain Cliffhanger of an Eclipse,” Science,Vol. 253, 26 July 1991, pp. 386–387.

“... interplanetary dust is not highly concentrated around the sun. In situ measurements made with impact detectors aboard the two Helios probes, which reached a heliocentric distance of 60 [solar radii],have also shown that the spatial IDP [interplanetary dust particles] density gradually levels off inside ~100 solar radii.
“Our two-dimensional IR[infrared]observations have shown unambiguously that a prominent circumsolar dust ring did not exist at the time of the 11 July 1991 solar eclipse. Consistent with these results, a second recent IR eclipse experiment also found no evidence of surface brightness enhancements.”P. Lamy et al., “No Evidence of a Circumsolar Dust Ring from Infrared Observations of the 1991 Solar Eclipse,” Science, Vol. 257, 4 September 1992, p. 1379.

b. L. F. Miranda et al., “Water-Maser Emission from a Planetary Nebula with a Magnetic Torus,” Nature,Vol. 414, 15 November 2001, pp. 284–286.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences10.html]

If, as evolutionists teach, the solar system evolved from a spinning dust and gas cloud 4.5 billion years ago, the slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25–30% less heat during its first 600 million years than it radiates today (a). (A drop in the Sun’s radiation of only a few percent would freeze all our oceans.) Had this happened anytime in the past, let alone for 600 million years, the ice’s mirror like surfaces would have reflected more of the Sun’s radiation into outer space, cooling Earth even more in a permanent, runaway deep-freeze. If it had, all agree that life could not have evolved.

Evolutionists first tried to solve this “faint young Sun” problem by assuming Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it (b). Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age” (c).

A second approach assumes that Earth’s atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases, and at high concentrations methane produces a haze that would have cooled Earth’s surface rather than warming it (d). Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic (e).

A third approach assumes that Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Sun’s radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth’s temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable (f).

Evolutionists have never explained in any of these approaches how such drastic changes could occur in almost perfect step with the slow increase in the Sun’s radiation. Until some evidence supports such “special pleadings,” it does not appear that the Sun evolved (g).

If the Sun, a typical and well-studied star, did not evolve, then why presume other stars did?

a. Gregory S. Jenkins et al., “Precambrian Climate: The Effects of Land Area and Earth’s Rotation Rate,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, 20 May 1993, pp. 8785–8791.
This paper acknowledges that if the Earth rotated almost twice as fast as it does today, this problem would be lessened—but not solved. Still required are a flooded Earth and an atmosphere with 30–300 times more carbon dioxide than today.

b. Let’s assume an old Earth and at least a fifth of the atmospheric carbon dioxide needed to prevent a runaway ice age had been present throughout the Earth’s first 2,750,000,000 years. That carbon dioxide would have combined with weathered rocks to produce large amounts of the mineral siderite (FeCO[SUB]3[/SUB]). Siderite is missing from ancient soils, showing that the concentrations of carbon dioxide needed to prevent a frozen Earth were never present. [See Rob Rye et al., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations before 2.2 Billion Years Ago,”Nature, Vol.378, 7 December 1995, pp.603–605.]

“There is no direct evidence to show that carbon dioxide levels were ever a thousand times higher.”Gregory Jenkins, as quoted by Tim Folger, “The Fast Young Earth,” Discover, November 1993, p. 32.

c. William R. Kuhn, “Avoiding a Permanent Ice Age,” Nature,Vol. 359, 17 September 1992, p. 196.

d.“The methane greenhouse effect is limited, however, because organic haze starts to form [chemically]at CH[SUB]4[/SUB]/CO[SUB]2[/SUB] ratios higher than ~0.1, and this creates an anti-greenhouse effect that cools the surface if the haze becomes too thick.”James F. Kasting, “Faint Young Sun Redux,” Nature,Vol. 464, 1 April 2010, p. 688.

e. In 1972, Carl Sagan and George H. Mullen first proposed that the early Earth had lots of heat-trapping methane and ammonia. They had no evidence for early methane and ammonia; they simply were looking for something that might have warmed the Earth, so there would have been no runaway deep freeze and life could have evolved. At the time of Sagan’s death (1996), he was still looking.

f.“Despite all of these proposed warming mechanisms, there are still reasons to think that the faint young Sun problem is not yet solved. Ice albedo feedback has been neglected in all of these one-dimensional climate calculations.”Kasting, p. 688.

g. For a frank admission of these and other “special pleadings,” see Carl Sagan and Christopher Chyba, “The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Organic Shielding of Ultraviolet-Labile Greenhouse Gases,” Science, Vol. 276, 23 May 1997, pp. 1217–1221.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences11.html#wp1631493

Venus must have a strong crust to support its extremely high, dense (a) mountains. One mountain, Maat Mons, rises higher than Earth’s Mount Everest does above sea level. Because Venus is relatively near the Sun, its atmosphere is 860°F—so hot its surface rocks must be weak or “tarlike.” (Lead melts at 622°F and zinc at 787°F.) Only if Venus’ subsurface rocks are cold and strong can its mountains defy gravity. This allows us to draw two conclusions, both of which contradict major evolutionary assumptions.

First, evolutionists assume that planets grew (evolved) by the gradual accumulation of rocky debris falling in from outer space, a process called gravitational accretion. Heat generated by a planet’s worth of impacts would have left the rocky planets molten. However, Venus was never molten. Had it been, its hot atmosphere would have prevented its subsurface rocks from cooling enough to support its mountains. So, Venus did not evolve by gravitational accretion.

Secondly, evolutionists believe the entire solar system is billions of years old. If Venus were billions of years old, its atmospheric heat would have “soaked” deeply enough into the planet to weaken its subsurface rocks. If so, not only could Venus’ crust not support mountains, the hot mountains themselves could not maintain their steep slopes. Venus must be relatively young.

If Venus’ mountains were composed of lighter material, they would “float” in the denser rock below, similar to an iceberg floating in denser liquid water. (Mountains on Earth are buoyed up, because they have a density of about 2.7 gm/cm[SUP]3[/SUP] and “float” in rock that is about 3.3 gm/cm[SUP]3[/SUP].) Data from the Magellan spacecraft that orbited and mapped Venus for several years showed that Venus’ mountains are composed of rock that is too dense to “float.” So, what supports them? It must be Venus’ strong crust—despite Venus’ extremely hot atmosphere. This implies Venus is not old and did not evolve.

(a) Richard A. Kerr, “A New Portrait of Venus: Thick-Skinned and Decrepit,” Science, Vol. 263, 11 February 1994, pp. 759–760.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences12.html]

The first law of thermodynamics states that the total energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. In other words, energy (or its mass equivalent) is not now being created or destroyed; it simply changes form. Countless experiments have verified this.

A corollary of the first law is that natural processes cannot create energy. Therefore, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce mass and energy (the inorganic portion of the universe) then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (or living) portion of the universe.

The universe is an isolated system, so according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, thus implying the universe had a beginning (a).

A further consequence of the second law is that the universe must have begun in a more organized and complex state than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory (b).

a. “The more orthodox scientific view is that the entropy of the universe must forever increase to its final maximum value. It has not yet reached this: we should not be thinking about it if it had. It is still increasing rapidly, and so must have had a beginning; there must have been what we may describe as a ‘creation’ at a time not infinitely remote.” Jeans, p. 181.

b. “A final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of increase in entropy have great philosophical implications. The question that arises is how did the universe get into the state of reduced entropy in the first place, since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy?...The author has found that the second law tends to increase his conviction that there is a Creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe.”Gordon J. Van Wylen, Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959), p. 169.

“The time asymmetry of the Universe is expressed by the second law of thermodynamics, that entropy increases with time as order is transformed into disorder. The mystery is not that an ordered state should become disordered but that the early Universe apparently was in a highly ordered state.” Don N. Page, “Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetry,” Nature, Vol. 304, 7 July 1983, p. 39.

“There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state.” Ibid., p. 40.

“The real puzzle is why there is an arrow of time at all; that is, why the Universe is not simply a thermodynamic equilibrium at all times (except during the inevitable local fluctuations). The theory of nonequilibrium systems[such as those described by Ilya Prigogine]may tell us how such systems behave, given that there are some; but it does not explain how they come to be so common in the first place (and all oriented in the same temporal direction). This is ‘time’s greatest mystery’, and for all its merits, the theory of nonequilibrium systems does not touch it. What would touch it would be a cosmological demonstration that the Universe was bound to be in a low-entropy state after the Big Bang.”Huw Price, “Past and Future,” Nature,Vol. 348, 22 November 1990, p. 356.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences15.html][http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html]

The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed (a), was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.

Redshift.The redshift of starlight is interpreted as a Doppler effect (b); that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere (c). Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws. Furthermore, these galaxies, in their recession from us, should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating. [See “Dark Thoughts” on page 34.]

1. “Observations only recently made possible by improvements in astronomical instrumentation have put theoretical models of the Universe [the big bang] under intense pressure. The standard ideas of the 1980s about the shape and history of the Universe have now been abandoned—and cosmologists are now taking seriously the possibility that the Universe is pervaded by some sort of vacuum energy, whose origin is not at all understood.”Peter Coles, “The End of the Old Model Universe,” Nature,Vol. 393, 25 June 1998, p. 741.

“Three years ago, observations of distant, exploding stars blew to smithereens some of astronomers’ most cherished ideas about the universe [the big bang theory]. To piece together an updated theory, they’re now thinking dark thoughts about what sort of mystery force may be contorting the cosmos.
“According to the standard view of cosmology, the once infinitesimal universe has ballooned in volume ever since its fiery birth in the Big Bang, but the mutual gravitational tug of all the matter in the cosmos has gradually slowed that expansion.

“In 1998, however, scientists reported that a group of distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther from Earth, than the standard theory indicated. It was as if, in the billion or so years it took for the light from these exploded stars to arrive at Earth, the space between the stars and our planet had stretched out more than expected. That would mean that cosmic expansion has somehow sped up, not slowed down. Recent evidence has only firmed up that bizarre result.” Ron Cowen, “A Dark Force in the Universe,” Science News, Vol. 159, 7 April 2001, p. 218.

“Not only don’t we see the universe slowing down; we see it speeding up.” Adam Riess, as quoted by James Glanz, “Astronomers See a Cosmic Antigravity Force at Work,” Science, Vol. 279, 27 February 1998, p. 1298.

“In one of the great results of twentieth century science, NSF-funded astronomers have shown both that the universe does not contain enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion, and that the rate of expansion actually increases with distance. Why? Nobody knows yet.” National Science Foundation Advertisement, “Astronomy: Fifty Years of Astronomical Excellence,” Discover, September 2000, p. 7.

“The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is accelerating and that whatever caused the acceleration (dubbed “dark energy”) cannot be Standard Model physics.” Gordon Kane, “The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model,” Scientific American, Vol. 288, June 2003, p. 73.

“Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no ‘science’ is receiving more self-criticism, chest-beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma.” Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.

b. Redshifts can be caused by other phenomena. [See Jayant V. Narlikar, “Noncosmological Redshifts,” Space Science Reviews,Vol. 50, August 1989, pp. 523–614.] However, large redshifts are probably the result of the Doppler effect.

c. “...energy in recognizable forms (kinetic, potential, and internal) in an expanding, spatially unbounded, homogeneous universe is not conserved.” Edward R. Harrison, “Mining Energy in an Expanding Universe,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 446, 10 June 1955, p. 66.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences17.html]