Another Lunar Formation Theory is in Trouble

For the past 200 years, scientists have been working hard to come up with an explanation for the Moon's formation that does not involve the direct work of a Creator. The fourth hypothesis in that the Moon was formed by the impact upon Earth of a body the size of Mars. Early this year it was proved to be wrong by new evidence. A fifth hypothesis has quickly taken its place! When will they realize that the God hypothesis is the only fully reasonable explanation?

(Based on Ron Samec, "Lunar Formation Theories" published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 17, Number 4, July/August 2012, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2012/CM17%2004%20for%20web.pdf)

Theory One. Fission Hypothesis.

George Darwin was the fifth child of Charles Darwin, who wrote On the Origin of Species, the sacred book of evolution. George, who became a professor of astronomy, followed in his father's footsteps by calling into question the Biblical account of the formation of the Earth and the Moon. In 1898, he published The Tides and Kindred Phenomena in the Solar System, in which he discussed the effects of tidal friction on the Earth–Moon system.¹



Fission Hypothesis

In this fission hypothesis, George Darwin claimed that the early Earth rotated faster and faster, as more dense elements sunk to its core. When the earth exceeded breakup velocity, the material that would become the Moon tore from the Pacific Ocean Basin, leaving a scar (Ridges). 

The problem with this is that the initial spin or angular momentum is not conserved in the present Earth-Moon system (50% loss).

Also, the orbit of the moon and the obliquity of the ecliptic (likewise the inclination of the earth) should coincide, and they do not. The Earth’s inclination is about 23.5^o to the orbital plane (the ecliptic) and the Moon’s orbit is inclined by some 5^o. 




The plane of the Moon's orbit does not match the plane of the Earth's rotation.

Theory Two. Condensation Hypothesis.



The Solar System supposedly
formed from a spinning ball
of gas. But then why is the
motion of the Moon and
Earth on different planes?

The fact that the plane of the Moon's orbit does not match the plane of the Earth's rotation also defeated the second Lunar formation theory that became very popular among scientists, namely the Condensation hypothesis. It is an extension of the Laplace nebular hypotheses: the Moon formed from the solar nebula.

As the sun’s nebula condensed, conservation of angular momentum caused a disk to form and within the disk, eddies or whirlpools developed. At the center of these, the planets formed.  Secondary eddies led to satellites or moons of the planets.  The Earth and the Moon supposedly formed in an eddy and a secondary eddy. Again, the current, strange Earth-Moon orbital-inclination would not result — the Moon’s orbital plane and the Earth’s equator should coincide.

Theory Three. Lunar-Capture Theory.

A ring of dust around earth slows
the passing  Moon, but it can't be enough
for it to be captured by Earth's gravity.

Another theory is that the Moon was captured by the Earth as it passed by in an Earth-crossing orbit. One major problem with this idea is that capture is an extremely rare event!  And even if this unlikely event took place, the Moon would likely have swung by in a parabolic or an elliptical trajectory, which is a higher velocity orbit than is that of the near circular orbits of either the Earth or the present Moon.

The big question is what caused the Moon to slow down? If captured by the Earth, we would expect the present Moon to have a larger eccentricity and inclination. The resulting, fantastic tidal dissipation would have resulted in major distortions and destruction of the Earth. Also, if a near-collision brought the object within the Roche limit of the Earth, the Moon could have been shredded into rings.

Theory Four. Collision Hypothesis.

In 1976 astronomers Alastair G. W. Cameron and William R. Ward suggested that the Moon was formed by the tangential impact upon Earth of a body the size of Mars. Most of the outer silicates of the colliding body would be vaporized, leaving the metallic core of the two bodies. Hence, most of the collisional material sent into orbit would consist of silicates, leaving the coalescing Moon deficient in iron.²


A body the size of Mars collided with Earth, resulting in the Moon with core properties different from Earth.

This premise seems to solve all of problems of the earlier theories. except for the vanishingly low probability of such an event! In fact, it is much more improbable than is a near collision of a lunar mass dwarf planet, as in the capture hypothesis. To this theory's credit, the odd orbit of the Moon is easily explained by the initial orbit of the planet since it does not have to follow a particular path (except that it should be near the ecliptic, which is the plane of the Earth's revolution around the Sun).

A recent study of Moon rocks now puts even this model in doubt³. The research team confined their study to a rare form of titanium (using the 50Ti/47Ti isotopic ratio) which is known to occur in widely varying amounts throughout the solar system. After correcting for the difference caused by the continued exposure of the lunar surface to the Sun’s radiation, the scientists found that the isotopic abundance in Moon rocks was identical to that of the Earth.

This implies that the Moon came only from Earth materials and not an alien planet that collided with the Earth. Thus, there is no evidence of the Mars-mass object in these data.

In other words, the collision theory has failed.

The Real Explanation: the God Hypothesis



The sun and moon exert
gravitational forces on Earth
that influence tides, needed to
sustain life.

The real explanation of the Moon’s existence and orbital configuration is that God designed and created the Moon and set it in place, with a number of important purposes. These include the gyrostabilization of the Earth, cleaning of Earth’s shorelines by tidal forces, giving light in the evening, and the revealing of the Sun’s corona and chromosphere to scientists during solar eclipses. Helium was discovered because of the last listed design feature.

As we read in Genesis 1:16-18,

…God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Theory Five. Efficient Impact Ejection.

Of course, scientists who work for mainstream universities and government agencies no longer allow themselves to think that there is a Creator God who was directly involved in the formation of the Moon, or of anything else.

Complete mixing of
two colliding bodies?

Very quickly, at least one group has come to the rescue with yet another lunar formation theory, to make up for the defeat of the Collision hypothesis. Zhang et al.⁴ (2012) stated that the twin nature of lunar rocks and the Earth could be explained by an “efficient impact ejection” by “exchange of material between the Earth’s magma ocean and the protolunar disk.”

It is hard enough to imagine such an improbable event as a planet just the size of Mars ... impacting the Earth at just the right angle ... to result in a perfectly placed Moon ... that benefits life on Earth in such wonderful ways. It is even harder, though, to imagine that this involved ... such a thorough mixing of the alien planet and the Earth’s crust ... so that the two bodies have identical core materials.

The God hypothesis will ultimately be the only fully reasonable explanation!

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

References (selected)

1.  Britannica.com: Sir George Darwin, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/151966/Sir-George-Darwin, retrieved October 8, 2012.

2. Wikipedia.org: Giant impact hypothesis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis, retrieved October 8, 2012.

3. Meier, M.M.M. 2012. Moon formation: Earth's titanium twin. Nature Geoscience 5:240–241.

4. Zhang, J.,  N. Dauphas, A.M. Davis, I. Leya, and A. Fedkin. 2012.  The proto-Earth as a signifi- cant source of lunar material. Nature Geoscience 5:251–255

Methane lakes on Saturn's moon? Young creation yet again...

Planetary scientists think they have detected a lake filled with methane on Saturn’s moon Titan, as reported in the scientific journal Nature.¹


An artist imagines
methane lakes on Titan.

Nature pointed out that scientists are puzzled how any methane could still remain after the presumed 4.5 billion years of Titan’s existence, given that a methane lake like this must be replenished within a ten-thousand year time scale!

Marko comments: It is much easier to explain if we accept that God created the Earth and the planets of our solar system within the last ten thousand years, as taught in God's own word to us, the Bible.

(excerted from David Copperedge, "Titan Lake News: Throwing Caution to the Wind", Creation Evolution Headlines, June 15, 2012. Also published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 17, Number 3, May/June 2012, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2012/CM17%2003%20for%20web.pdf)

Let's consider these scientists' conclusion in the Nature article:

General circulation models demonstrate that long-lasting tropical lakes several metres deep must be replenished, depending on the ethane content, within a ten-thousand-year timescale. Taken together, tropical lakes and studies of Titan’s lakes suggest that, currently, subterranean liquid supplies methane to Titan’s surface and atmosphere. A supply of on average 6 × 10⁻⁴ kg m⁻² yr⁻¹ is needed to explain the composition of Titan’s atmosphere, because methane, the progenitor of the moon’s organic species, is destroyed in 10–100 million years through solar ultraviolet photolysis. More observations are needed to determine whether this 4.5-billion-year-old moon is undergoing a specific recent flourish of geological activity, because it is freezing and its orbit decaying.

What that last sentence implies is that scientists are being forced by the evidence to consider special conditions – “a specific recent flourish of geological activity” – to account for the presence of methane on Titan at all. At most, the methane on this bizarre moon would all be gone in 100 million years, one fortieth the assumed age of Titan, unless it were constantly being supplied from somewhere. Underground reservoirs might provide a convenient (unobservable) hiding place for the stockpile, but that solution arouses geological puzzles about how deep the methane would need to be, how it would form, and how it could erupt onto the surface. Added to that are indications that since Titan is freezing and its orbit is decaying, there should be less geological activity, not more.

Secular scientists are generally reluctant to invoke any “specific recent flourish” of activity occurring right at the time humans are around to observe it. Why now, and not throughout Titan’s lifetime?

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

References

1. Caitlin A. Griffith et al, Possible tropical lakes on Titan from observations of dark terrain, Nature 486, 14 June 2012, pp. 237–239, doi:10.1038/nature11165.

A review of The Devil's Delusion, by David Berlinski

Did you see the 2008 documentary Expelled in the movie theatres? You may remember David Berlinski’s conversation with Ben Stein in the film. Berlinski holds a philosophy Ph.D. from
Princeton, has served on the faculty of several universities, and lives in Paris.

Recently, Berlinski wrote The Devil's Delusion (2009), as an encouragement for people “frustrated by endless scientific boasting. They suspect that as an institution, the scientific community holds them in contempt” (p. xvii).

(selections from Don B. DeYoung's book review, published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 48, Number 4, Spring 2012)

The author readily takes on and exposes the shallow atheistic arguments of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and others in this sorry band of doubters. Many of Berlinski’s phrases and statements are quotable, and a sampling follows.


• Natural selection is described as “the Darwinian business of scrabbling up the greasy pole of life” (p. 17).
• Regarding the science establishment,“the worldwide fraternity of academics who are professionally occupied in sniffing the underwear of their colleagues for signs of ideological deviance” (p. 52).
• Concerning Stephen Hawking’s 1988 A Brief History of Time: “Widely considered fascinating by those who did not read it, and incomprehensible to those who did” (p. 98).
• Concerning the popularity of the multi-universe idea: “It is better to have many worlds than one God” (p. 135).
• An understatement concerning the comparable mysteries of the particle-wave nature of light and the Trinitarian nature of the Deity: “This is not an analogy that has captured the allegiance of scientific atheists” (p. 93).
• “A miracle is what it seems: an event offering access to the divine” (p. 182).
• “Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not” (p. 190).
• “Although Darwin’s theory is very often [said to be] as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution. They know better and they are not stupid” (p. 191).
• If God directly addressed scientists, he might say, “You have no idea whatsoever how the ordered physical, moral, mental, aesthetic, and social world in which you live could have ever arisen from the seething anarchy of elementary particles” (p. 201).

Berlinski suggests that evolutionary science itself has become an unwieldy, outdated religion complete with an ecclesiastical hierarchy, museum edifices, Darwinian holy books, and extreme efforts to convert doubters. Supporters of this secular worldview are thus in a similar position to the geocentrists of the 1600s, including inner doubts that cannot be expressed in public.

The Devil’s Delusion
by David Berlinski
Basic Books, New York, 2009
238 pages, $16.00.

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

The atheist alternative to God: Exactly ZERO

The laws of physics could have created the universe from nothing, according to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss in his recent book.¹

To support this idea, Krauss and other Big Bang scientists appeal to the well-known phenomena of “virtual particle” creation and annihilation, also known as a quantum fluctuation. These subatomic particles appear and then disappear over such short time intervals that they cannot be directly observed. The short lifetimes of these virtual particles are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), which says that a short-lived state cannot have a well-defined energy. The greater the energy of the fluctuation, the shorter the time that it may last.  Without HUP, another Big Bang might occur at just about any time...

The universe itself is the result of such a fluctuation, according to Krauss and other evolutionary physicists. Of course, the energy content of the universe would be so large that the corresponding fluctuation time would be vanishingly small. Evolutionary physicists argue, however, that if the total energy content of the universe were exactly zero, then a universe resulting from such a quantum fluctuation could persist indefinitely without violating the HUP.

Exactly Zero is all that is required.

In order to verify the claim that the total energy content of the universe is exactly zero, one would have to account for all the forms of energy in the universe (gravitational potential energy, the relativistic energies of all particles, etc.), add them together, and then verify that the sum really is exactly zero.

However, if you are not already committed in advance to the Big Bang theory, it is not at all clear that the universe’s total energy would be exactly zero. In fact, it seems extremely unlikely.

Zero chance, shall we say?

Moreover, when virtual particles momentarily appear within a vacuum, they are appearing in a space that already exists. Because space itself is part of our universe, the spontaneous creation of a universe requires space itself to somehow pop into existence.

Why do atheistic physicists naively assume that rules like the HUP would even apply when describing the universe’s creation? Since the HUP is known to be valid only within or inside our universe, it is not at all clear why they would assume that the HUP would even apply when discussing our universe’s creation. One can engage in all kinds of speculation here, but such speculation is not science.

These supposed higher laws of physics must have an existence apart from the universe. But this presents a dilemma for the atheist like Carl Sagan, who famously said “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”²

Despite the impressive academic credentials of those promoting the “universe from nothing” idea, the scenario is utterly unreasonable, and no Bible-believing Christian should be intimidated by these “vain imaginations.”

Christians believe in a great God who created all things ex nihilo (out of nothing).
Atheists are forced to believe in an Exact Zero that created all things out of nothing.

 
(selections from Jake Hebert, A Universe from Nothing? Acts & Facts, July 2012, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

References (selected)

1. Krauss, L. 2012. A Universe from Nothing. New York: Free Press.

2. Sagan, C. 1985. Cosmos. New York: Ballantine Books, 1.

Yes, but How did Earth get nudged into a new zip code? Planet pinball!

Big Scientific Problem: "Common theories of stellar evolution predict that the sun was only 70 percent of its current brightness when it first lit its fusion engine 4.5 billion years ago. The sun has been steadily growing brighter since then and will continue so into the future, eventually evaporating away Earth's oceans.

"Once Earth amassed an ocean 4.3 billion years ago it should have quickly frozen over and reflected so much sunlight back into space that it squelched Earth's ability to thaw out for billions of years.

"The dilemma, called the "faint young sun paradox," has been know about since the 1950s and was popularized by Carl Sagan. Geochemists and solar physicists have wrestled for answers all these years.

"Lowering Earth's reflectivity by reducing cloud cover doesn't work. Models also show that a greenhouse effect from dense carbon dioxide and methane can't warm the Earth enough either. In some simulations, methane and carbon dioxide combine to make a photochemical smog that would have chilled Earth even further.

"Now, David Minton of Purdue University has come up with a novel solution that, by his own admission, straddles science fact and fiction. Minton proposes that Earth was closer to the sun when it formed and then migrated outward to its current orbit. To keep Earth tepid under a cooler sun, our planet would have needed to have been roughly 6 million miles (9.7 million kilometers) closer to the sun than it is today.

OK, now the really hard part...

Smashup.

"But how do you nudge Earth into a new zip code? The most plausible model, out of several other unlikely mechanisms that were only present in the very young solar system, is a gravitational billiard ball game called planet-planet scattering.

"The challenge is that this effect would have had to have dragged out over one or two billion years. Even more problematic is that for this musical chairs game to work at all, one more terrestrial planet is need in the inner solar system. And, it's a big one at that, ranging between the mass of Mars and Venus.

"The unlucky "odd planet out" would have wound up falling into the sun, being ejected from the solar system, or crashing into another terrestrial planet.

Dr. David Minton.

"This isn't too far-fetched in that the solar system is fundamentally chaotic, says Minton. "Solar systems don't know if they are going to be stable for billions of years." Minton says that the best dynamical computer simulation for relocating Earth has a rogue plant that is 75 percent Earth's mass smashing into Venus -- in the ultimate planetary pinball game of "three's a crowd." This would have happened in as little as 2 or 3 billion years ago. Earth got kicked out into its present orbit as a consequence."

Marko comments:

Wow, isn't it amazing what scientists come up with these days! The only problem is, there is no experiment they can conduct to test this idea ... so this is not "Science".

When will scientists admit that there is no purely "natural" answer to the universe? All things point to a Creator, just as the Bible tells us to look for.

(excerpts from Ray Villard, Was Earth a Migratory Planet? Discovery News, April 18, 2012)

The Intelligent Designer must have employed Miracles!

Naturalism cannot account for all of the parts necessary for life coming together at one time. Only an instantaneous creation and assembly of all of the necessary parts into a functioning unit can produce life. This is the basis of Intelligent Design. Anyone who would seriously consider this must admit that the Intelligent Designer used miraculous methods to do this!

The Bible teaches that God created everything from nothing, ex nihilo, with the appearance of age. Adam, the trees in the Garden of Eden, the rays of sunlight that warmed the garden, all evidently appeared mature, though they were all brand new. Is God a Deceiver by creating things that look old when they are not? No, he did not leave us in the dark or try to “trick us” or “test our faith”. God told us what he did!

Selections from The Case for the Mature Creation Hypothesis, by Jerry Bergman.

(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the article published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 48, Number 3, Winter 2012)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

Irrefutable Evidence for Intelligent Design

Transcription and Translation.

Naturalism simply cannot explain life. Consider that DNA is useless without: (1) all of the complex machinery required to produce mRNA, such as RNA polymerase, and (2) the machinery required to translate the mRNA code into protein such as a ribosome. Furthermore, a ribosome is only one of multiple proteins that the cellular machinery produces from mRNA. Hundreds of complex proteins are necessary for a cell to be alive and, therefore, a functional cell could have been created only as a complete functioning unit, not as individual parts. Also, most nucleotides rapidly degrade at the temperatures that scientists speculate existed on the early earth (Irion, 1998).

Evolution cannot account for all of the parts necessary for life coming together at one time and being properly assembled and activated as a unit in a timely manner so that it will produce life.
Products produced by the nonliving world (such as smooth stones polished by moving water) could never produce either plant or animal life because all life is based on enormous amounts of information, and the parts produced by that information must be assembled according to a designed plan in an environment, such as a certain ecosystem, that supports life (Schroeder, 2001; Yockey, 1992; Behe, 1996)

The Water Cycle.

Furthermore, the earth is a system involving many complex feedback cycles. A well-known example is that the earth must have an oxygen cycle, a carbon cycle, a nitrogen cycle, a sulfur cycle, a hydrologic cycle, and numerous other interconnected cycles in order to sustain life on the planet. The earth must have been created with all of its cycle systems functioning to allow life to be able to live on it.

The Intelligent Designer at Work

Since evolution cannot explain this problem, and it has been documented that this approach is not feasible, only an instantaneous creation and assembly of all of the necessary parts into a functioning unit can produce life.

If creation has occurred at all, it is reasonable that it would have been a complete creation. It must have had an “appearance of age” at the moment of creation. This Creation must have included all the chemical elements already organized in all the organic and inorganic chemical compounds and mixtures necessary to support the processes of the earth and of life on the earth (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, pp. 344-345, 369).

Eighteenth-century naturalist Philip Gosse argued that since both living and nonliving things existed in never-ending cycles, the Intelligent Designer created everything in the act of progressing in its cycle—egg to chicken, chicken to egg, oak to acorn, then to oak, and again to acorn in an endless cycle. Life would reproduce and develop, with animals having skin, blood, and bones when created, all making them appear to someone who falsely assumes that all current processes must be extrapolated into the past older than they actually were when created. This theory he called prochronism, or “outside of time” (Gosse, 1857).

Nobel laureate George Wald even stated that he believed the universe was designed for life. As an example, he stated that the elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen “have unique properties” required for life that are not shared by any other element in the periodic table of the elements (interview in Levy, 1998, p. 12).

Creation from Nothing

Plato and other ancient sages believed that God created the universe from preexisting chaos (Hannam, 2009, p. 63). In contrast, Christianity taught that God created the universe from nothing, thus the creation was not a remake of something old, but rather was the creation of something that was new and that Genesis says was “very good.” This is important for the doctrines of the Fall of mankind into sin and death described in Genesis and Jesus’ sacrifice to restore humankind (Hannam, 2009, p. 41).

Ex-nihilo creation from nothing always results in all created objects having the appearance of maturity. This conclusion applies to all miracles, including everything from the creation of wine from water to the creation of Adam and Eve from dust.

The idea of mature creation may account for the discrepancy between the age that scientists have determined for various aspects of creation and the age that Genesis presents.

The problems inherent in dating an instantaneous, supernatural creation are illustrated by the creation of the first man, Adam. If a modern onlooker assumed that Adam was born an infant as are modern humans, he would conclude that Adam was about 20 years old when, in fact, he was only about one day old. This does not imply that the Creator is deceptive but reflects the fact that the human body had to be created fully formed and functional in order to exist as a living organism.

If Adam’s blood were not already circulating in his circulatory system when he was created, the few minutes required to prime his circulation system could cause major cell death or damage. Furthermore, all of Adam’s organs—including his heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, etc. — must have been functioning simultaneously as a unit the instant that he was created. In other words, Adam must have been created as a fully mature young man.

For this reason, even though Adam was created instantaneously, he would be evaluated by many modern physiological measurements to be a 20-year old man the moment he was created (Poythress, 2006). An example is bone ossification measurements that evaluate the level of conversion of cartilage into bone as the child develops. A physician might conclude from bone-to-cartilage ratios, that Adam was 20 years old, some evidence for an age much less than 20 might also be found. We might not detect certain effects of aging (such as DNA and RNA damage) in a one-day-old Adam. Likewise, lack of both tooth wear, cosmic ray damage, and other signs of aging may also have indicated an age of a few days old instead of 20 years old.

Kyle Butt asks, "How old were Adam and Eve two seconds after God created them? They were literally two seconds old! Yet they walked, talked, and looked like adult human beings, and even had the ability to reproduce" (Butt, 2002, p. 40-R).

Artistic depiction of
the Garden of Eden.

We know that the Garden of Eden appeared old because it had fully grown trees with fruit on them when created.

The earth, solar system, Milky Way Galaxy, and entire universe were brought into existence supernaturally during six 24-hour days. Top soil and trees appeared virtually instantaneously in the Garden. Fully-grown animals were miraculously formed on land and in the air, complete with symbiotic relationships. The seas instantly swarmed with creatures, great and small, that had never been born or developed from infancy. Our first parents, Adam and Eve, were adults from their first breaths. The sun’s nuclear fusion furnace began on Day 4, at full power and in thermodynamic equilibrium. Starlight from distant stars was created in transit, complete with a virtual history of information embedded within the light waves. Adam and Eve could look at the night sky their first evening on Earth and see cosmic light sources much as we do tonight. To an observer the completed creation on Day 6 was fully functioning in a steady state (DeYoung, 2010, p. 54).

The sun must have been able to heat and light the earth on the day it was created. Although it takes only eight minutes for the sun’s light to reach the earth, it takes an estimated 10,000 to 170,000 years for the gamma rays produced in the sun’s core to reach the sun’s surface as visible photons due to the absorption and reemission path taken as the photons journey outwards (Sturrock, 1985). The photons must have been created in transit as if millions of years had passed.

Russell Humphey's
Starlight and Time.

As God created the universe for a reason it is not unreasonable to infer that the stars were created with their light in transit (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 369). Although other theories exist to explain the fact that we can see stars that are millions of light years away, such as Russell Humphrey’s white hole cosmology (Humphreys, 1994), the mature creation view can effectively explain how distant supernovae can be seen from the earth within a Biblical time framework.

Interesting questions remain. Did Adam had a navel? (Since he was not born of a woman.) Did the first trees have rings? (The trees would have been fully grown, and fruit trees would have fruit on them, giving the appearance of age). Would ground erosion be evident at the time of Adam, aside from that caused by newly created rivers, a moment after they were created?

Miracles

Creation ex nihilo is not a natural process. Rather it is a miracle.

Resurrection of Lazarus.

Arguably the “most spectacular of Jesus’ miracles” was the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany, the brother of Mary and Martha (Sanders, 1962, p. 103). Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after Lazarus had been in the grave for four days, long enough for his body to begin major levels of decomposition. It is for this reason that the scriptural account describes his body as having a strong, unpleasant smell.

Others Jesus raised from the dead had only recently died (namely, Jairus’s daughter in Mark 5:22–43 and the son of the widow at Nain in Luke 7:11–17), and some argue that they were only in a coma from which they were revived.

But no such argument can be made in the case of Lazarus. When a body smells, it means that the stomach acids have begun to hydrolyze the body’s internal tissues and that the intestinal bacteria has begun digest connective tissue and other body carbohydrates. However, writing books arguing that Lazarus’s resurrection was medically impossible does not prove that the event did not occur, only that it was a miracle.

Jesus turns water into wine.

Another example of a miracle is Christ’s conversion of water into wine (John 2:7–11). Scientifically, this is impossible because water contains hydrogen and oxygen in a two to one ratio. Wine contains water, plus a carbon based compound called ethyl alcohol or ethanol, and various flavors and other components. Jesus performed a natural process instantaneously, not in a year or so as is normally required to produce wine from
grapes using water.

As it is a “strain to fit the history of the world into a biblical 6,000 years” (Gardiner, 2009, p. 132), it is also a strain to convert water into wine in a few seconds, or to turn back the clock on a dead man. If these events actually occurred, as the Bible and Christians have believed for 2,000 years, all these events are miracles.

Is God a Deceiver?

A major objection to the appearance-of-age theory is that if God made the earth appear older than it actually is, then He has deceived us because the earth is not, in fact, as old as it appears. 

Kyle Butt concludes that the deception claim would be valid except that:

God told us what he did! He did not leave us in the dark or try to “trick us” or “test our faith” by hiding from us important information that He knew we would need. Rather, He was very straightforward and honest with us. Considering the material found in the first eleven chapters of Genesis (and elsewhere throughout the Bible), no one can justifiably accuse God of deception (Butt, 2002, p. 40-R).

Conversely, John Morris adds that if “scientists extrapolating present process  are right and the universe is old, then God has lied to us, for He clearly said He created all things in six days, not too long ago” (Morris, 2010, p. 15).

Appearance of Age, Evolutionists, and the Culture Wars

One evolutionist Professor, John Wagner has noticed the difficulty in teaching evolution in the classroom to students with a religious veiwpoint. He wrote:

Most undergraduate students take geology courses as the perceived least painful option to fulfill their institution’s general education laboratory science requirements … Many of these students, especially in large state-assisted schools … bring religious viewpoints and perspectives to their studies which espouse profoundly negative views about evolution and the geologic time scale. Students in this category will grudgingly memorize the minimum amount of geological information they need to pass the course, but will let the instructor know that they don’t believe a word of it is true. This type of situation doesn’t help the student, the class morale, or the greater goal of scientific literacy for all people (Wagner, 2005, p. 194).

The solution that he found very successful in both physical and historical geology classes is:

to introduce the concept of apparent age prior to discussing the geological time scale or the age of the earth in the lecture setting. By acknowledging up front that special creation is a possible option, so long that creation carries the imprint of apparent age, the tension among students is relieved and geological processes and concepts can be investigated in good conscience based on the apparent age of rocks, fossils, or landscapes. With students no longer on the defensive, they are free to study geology without feeling like they are betraying their religious faith (Wagner, 2005, p. 194).

The evidence given here should cause all evolutionists to consider, as Wagner does, that special creation is viable!

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

References (selected)

Behe, M. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. Free Press, New York, NY.

Butt, K. 2002. What is the doctrine of apparent age? Reason and Revelation 1(10):40–41.

Comins, N. 1993. What If the Moon Didn’t Exist? Harper Collins, New York, NY.

Gardiner, J. 2009. At liberty to divulge. American Scholar. 87(2):131–133.

Gonzalez, G., and J. Richards. 2004. The Privileged Planet. Regnery, New York, NY.

Gosse, P. 1857. Omphalos. An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. John Van Voorst, London, England.

Hannam, J. 2009. God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. Icon Books, London, UK.

Irion, R. 1998. Ocean scientists find life, warmth in the seas. Science 279:1302–1303.

Levy, D. 1998. Four simple facts behind the miracle of life. Parade Magazine. June 12, p. 12.

Morris, J. 2010. Creation with the appearance of age. Acts & Facts 39(12):15.

Poythress, V. 2006. Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach. Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL.

Sanders, J.N. 1962. Lazarus of Bethany. In Buttrick, G. (editor), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Abingdon Press, New York, NY.

Schroeder, G. 2001. The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth. The Free Press, New York, NY.

Sturrock P. 1985. Physics of the Sun: The Solar Interior. Springer, New York, NY.

Wagner, J. 2005. Using the concept of apparent age to defuse creationist confrontations in the classroom. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 37(7):194.

Whitcomb, J.C., and H.M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia, PA.

Yockey, H. 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Should Wishful Thinking be part of Science?

As we proceed into the 21st century, secular scientists are still attempting to eke out a purely material explanation for the origin of the universe and life on this planet.

Marko comments: It seems that they can only succeed by employing that great tool of evolutionary science, wishful thinking! Here are some recent examples from scientific literature:

“Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.”¹

“Life must have begun with a simple molecule that could reproduce itself.”²

“There must have been something like a cell right from the start, to contain the replicator and keep its component parts together.“²

“One day soon, someone will fill a container with a mix of primordial chemicals, keep it under the right conditions, and watch life emerge. That experiment will be done.”³

(from Frank Sherwin, Basic Questions Remain for the Secular Scientist, Acts & Facts, January 2012, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

References (selected)

1. Gefter, A. 2011. Existence special: Cosmic mysteries, human questions—Existence: Why is there a universe? New Scientist. 2822:29.

2. Marshall, M. 2011. First life: The search for the first replicator. New Scientist. 2825:33, 35.

3. John Sutherland, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, quoted in Marshall, p.35.

Evolution is O for Five on Formation Theories

Evolution is striking out in finding workable formation theories: formation of stars, planets, our moon, life, and animals. Maybe its time for Evolution to retire from the game?

We are taught that atoms became galaxies and stars.” Really? How, indeed, considering that an evolutionist in Scientific American stated:

It might seem that star formation is a problem that has been solved. But nothing could be further from the truth. The birth of stars remains one of the most vibrant topics in astrophysics today.¹

They also describe “elements [turning] into solid, rocky planets,” but there are serious scientific problems with this idea of planet formation. In 2011, National Geographic News reported:

The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.²

Well, at least it’s known how earth’s closest celestial neighbor formed, right? No—an evolutionary website reported in 2008:

The finding [of lunar water] calls into question some critical aspects of the “giant impact” theory of the Moon’s formation.³

Finally, there have always been serious challenges to the bizarre idea that over time inorganic nonlife became organic life. “The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself,” said one evolutionist.⁴

If people really want to know their origin, as well as the origin of the universe, they would do well to consult the written record of the One who was there “in the beginning.”

(Based on Frank Sherwin, From Rocks...to Brains, Acts & Facts, September 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

References (selected)

1. Young, E. T. Mysteries of How a Star Is Born. Scientific American, February 1, 2010, 34. See also Thomas, B. Distant Galactic Cluster Should Not Exist. ICR News. Posted on icr. org May 21, 2010.

2. Lovett, R. A. Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says. National Geographic News. Posted on news.nationalgeographic.com February 22, 2011. See also Asphaug, E. 2009. Growth and Evolution of Asteroids. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 37: 413-48. See generally Spike Psarris’ DVD Our Created Solar System (available from http://www.creation.com/).

3. Moon water discovered: Dampens Moon-formation theory. Carnegie Institution news release, July 9, 2008, reporting on research published in Saal, A. E. et al. 2008. Volatile content of lunar volcanic glasses and the presence of water in the Moon’s interior. Nature. 454 (7210): 192-195.

4. Donoghue, P. C. J. 2007. Paleontology: Embryonic identity crisis. Nature. 445 (7124): 155.

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Evolutionists won't admit that they actually embrace the Supernatural

We hear evolutionary cosmogonists maintaining that the universe evolved itself out of nothing! This is their version of the Supernatural. Creationists at least postulate an adequate Cause to produce the universe—that is, an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, self-existing, personal, Creator God. For those who believe in God, creation ex nihilo is plausible and reasonable. But even if people refuse to acknowledge a real Creator, they should realize that a universe evolving out of nothing would contradict the law of cause-and-effect, the principle of conservation of mass/energy, the law of increasing entropy, and the very nature of reason itself. How can they say such things?

There have always been huge difficulties with the Big Bang theory: how the primeval explosion could be the cause of the complexity and organization of the vast cosmos, and how to explain how a uniform explosion could generate such a diverse, heterogeneous universe.

Sir Fred Hoyle, outstanding astronomer and cosmologist, who finally gave up the steady-state theory which he had originated and long promoted, has also shown that the big bang theory should be abandoned, for still other reasons.

"As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the big bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome .... I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. When a pattern of facts become set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers."¹

Where did the initial "point-universe" come from? This amazing infinitesimal particle which contained the entire universe and, in principle, all its future galaxies, planets and people—how do we account for it? Now, if one thinks that the scenario up to this point has been enchantingly preposterous, he will surely think the rest of it is simply a creationist plot to make evolutionists look ridiculous. Readers should certainly check this out for themselves!

How did it all come to pass? Edward Tryon, who started much of these metaphysical exercises back in 1973, says:

"So I conjectured that our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness."²

So our vast, complex cosmos began as a point of something or other which evolved as a fluctuation from a state of nothingness!

"In this picture, the universe came into existence as a fluctuation in the quantum-mechanical vacuum. Such a hypothesis leads to a view of creation in which the entire universe is an accident. In Tryon's words, 'Our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.'"³

Regardless of the sophisticated mathematical apparatus leading the Big Bang cosmogonists to their remarkable statement of faith in the omnipotence of nothingness, there will continue to be a few realists who prefer the creationist alternative: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

(excerpts from Henry Morris, Evolution Ex Nihilo, Act & Facts, Institute for Creation Research, September 2011)

References (selected)

1. Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang Under Attack," Science Digest, Vol 92, May 1984, p. 84.

2. Edward P. Tryon, 'What Made the World?" New Scientist, Vol. 101, Mar. 8, 1984, p. 15.

3. James Trefil, "The Accidental Universe," Science Digest, Vol. 92, June 1984, p. 101.

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Evolutionists can't get around the Laws of Thermodynamics

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the creation or annihilation of matter/energy is impossible, yet here we are. Obviously, the origin of anything cannot have been solely by today’s natural processes.

Likewise, the Second Law of Thermodynamics holds that nature cannot self-organize, and yet both life and inanimate matter are highly complex. Therefore, an organizing process different than today’s degenerative processes must have acted.

To choose unguided, unthinking, impotent nature as the organizer and selector remains a choice of faith—but that of an inferior faith, indeed!

(excerpted from John D. Morris, The Language of Evolution, Acts & Facts, July 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

Evolutionists say Energy overcomes the Second Law

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process!

(reposted from Is Energy the Key?, CreationAnswers.net, 1999)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Godless theories can't explain planets surrounding other stars

An illustration of a planet with a highly
inclined orbit found around
the star HAT-P-11.

Geoff Marcy, Professor of Astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley, is famous for discovering more extrasolar planets than anyone else, 70 out of the first 100 to be discovered.  So it comes as some surprise that Professor Marcy has concluded: “The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born. We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems. In theory, other stars with planets should have gotten similar starts. But theory has implications not born out in reality.”

Planetary orbits should be circular, but many extrasolar planets have elliptical orbits. Everything should orbit in the same plane and direction, but many have highly inclined or even retrograde orbits; Neptune-sized planets should be rare, since models of our water giants require highly unusual starting conditions. But there are too many out there. Marcy told the American Astronomical Society last month: “Theory has struck out.”

Marko comments: First, Marcy's conclusions show that our wonderful Earth is indeed a Privileged Planet, just as astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez found to be true in his research, and ended up being denied tenure at Iowa State University because this ran afoul of the godless scientific establishment. Second, godless theories can't explain planets surrounding other stars. They are yet another sign of our wonderful Creator God!

(based on "Busted! Planet-Making Theories Don’t Fit Extrasolar Planets", Creation-Evolution Headlines, February 2011)

(also published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 16, Number 2, March/April 2011, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2010/CM15%2006%20low%20res.pdf)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

A Goldilocks Planet needs just the right Tides

Artist's concept of a large,
rocky extrasolar planet. 

Lots of planets surround other stars ... but the idea that we will find life when we find a planet at just the right distance is far too simplistic. Science Daily reported that “Tides can render the so-called ‘habitable zone’ around low-mass stars uninhabitable.” Astronomers at the Astrophysical Institute Potsdam studied the effects of tides on planets around low-mass stars (the most numerous stars in the galaxy) and found that the lack of seasons, the increased heat and volcanism, and synchronous rotation (the same side always facing to the star) make them uncomfortable at best, and perhaps uninhabitable.

“I think that the chances for life existing on exoplanets in the traditional habitable zone around low-mass stars are pretty bleak, when considering tidal effects,” lead researcher Rene Heller remarked. “If you want to find a second Earth, it seems that you need to look for a second Sun.”

Marko comments: You won't find another Goldilocks Planet, because God created just one! Let's see, we need just the right distance from the star, just the right distance from the center of the galaxy, just the right tides, just the right temperature for liquid water, just the right amount of ultraviolet light, just the right protection from asteroids, just the right...

Those who insist on looking for this second Sun might as well look for someone else beside Jesus to save them, too. But sorry, there is no one who qualifies.

(Based on "Habitable Zones Constrained by Tide", Creation-Evolution Headlines, February 2011)

(also published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 16, Number 2, March/April 2011, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2010/CM15%2006%20low%20res.pdf)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

The Gospel according to NASA

The good news given to us in the Bible is that Jesus Christ has paid for the sins of those who trust in him, and will return to create a New Heavens and a New Earth. If you do not want to accept this gift from God, here is an alternative gospel, from NASA and other potential colonizers of the heavens, as reported by Ben Austen in the March 2011 issue of Popular Science.

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)


"Given the risks humans pose to the planet, we might someday leave Earth simply to conserve it." (Liberty Foundation)

"The dinosaurs died out because they were too stupid to build an adequate space faring civilization." (Tihamer Toth-Fejel, General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems)

"After completing a $200-million study in 2000, NASA reported that a colony could be dug several feet beneath our own moon's surface or covered within an existing crater to protect residents from the constant bombardment of high-energy cosmic radiation." (NASA)

"The presence of life-sustaining ice on the moon is a precursur to permanent lunar bases, hotels, and even casinos." (National Space Society)

"Mars compares to the moon as North America compared to Greenland in the previous age of maritime exploration." (Robert Zubrin, head of the Mars Society)

"In 2002, NASA's Mars Odyssey spacecraft detected continent-size regions of water ice in the Martian ground, and in 2008, photographs from the Phoenix Mars lander confirmed the presence of ice there." (NASA)

According to Princeton University physicist, Gerard O'Neill, "a massive freestanding orbital habitat" could be designed consisting of large cylinders spinning along an axis at a rate of about one rotation per minute.... Populations on these ships would be kept well above 150 people to avoid the consequences of inbreeding, although ideally the rotating habitats would exist in socially interactive clusters. Residents could also use stored DNA whenever the gene pool needed more variety." (Al Globus, contractor at NASA Ames Research Center)

"If you get your ship into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere." (Robert Heinlein)

"A massive centrifuge, called a 'slingatron', could be used to spin objects until they reach a velocity at which they can be flung out of our gravitational well." (physicist Derek Tidman)

"We should keep an open mind about the possibility of more advanced approaches, including wormhole teleportation and faster-than-light warp drive" (Marc Millis, Tau Zero Foundation)

"Self-replicating nanobots could one day be sent to an asteroid, where they would bore through the surface and begin the mining process, or they might be shuttled to the moon or a distant planet, where they would reproduce and spread and in time create an entire industrial civilization ready for people on their arrival. Human DNA might even be packed along with these civilization-building nanobots and used to spawn people when the time was right." (Mark Hopkins, National Space Society)

"There is no reason to think of human biological evolution as a passing phase; one day we all might be reengineered into sentient machines, our identities uploaded and transmitted into deep space, with scaled-down ships no longer having to provide radiation protection, closed-loop habitats or legroom." (Mark Hopkins, National Space Society) (author Ben Austen responded "your vision of the final frontier, sexless and bodiless as is, doesn't seem especially romantic". Hopkins acknowledged, "Well, maybe not, but you didn't ask me about romance.)

"A manned mission to Mars is already financially and technologically achievable, if only we drop the notion of a return flight." (Dirk Schulze-Makuch, astrobiologist at Washington State University)

"In 20 years, humans would have established a permanent Martian base." (Dirk Schulze-Makuch)

"In the weeks after Dirk Schulze-Makuch and his co-author published their article in the Journal of Cosmology, they received more than 100 emails, from 16-year olds and 65-year olds alike, each one announcing a readiness to leave for Mars immediately."

"Right now, most of the progress toward space settlement is being accomplished in the private sector."

(excerpts from After Earth: Why, Where, How, and When We Might Leave Our Home Planet, by Ben Austen, Popular Science, March 2011, p. 46ff)

(Marko's comment: I hope you live long enough to see this dream, and that you are one of the tiny elect number of people chosen by our leaders to embark on this odyssey, since there will be much less room than the 6 billion people that God currently accomodates on our planet Earth!)