Our Solar System: Evidence of Creation

okay briefly who I am and why I'm here I am a formal engineer from the military space program I entered that program a number of years ago as an evolutionist and an atheist I came out of it a creationist in a Christian and tonight I'm going to share some of the things I learned during that time and since and try to convince you of my beliefs now as well see so I'm going to indoctrinate you I'm warning you up front so it's ethical right you sometimes been told I'm sure as I have that we're creationists because we're Christians in other words if we weren't hampered by our Christian beliefs we would see the obvious truth of evolution I am one among many who for the opposite is true I became a creationist first in a creation creationist after so when I'm talking about the night and the time we have is as you can see I created solar system what you are not being told about evolutionary astronomy let me explain my use of the word evolutionary first most people use the word evolution to talk about biology that's of course the most common use of it you also hear applied to other objects as well that aren't based on life so when I talk about evolution I'm talking about the idea that everything around us the entire universe formed all by itself without the intervention of a creator that can figure how to work this thing click now there's two opposing views as to where the universe came from the Bible verse was the Big Bang the Bible says everything was created in six days about six thousand years or so ago every object in the sky was created for signs and for seasons and to glorify its creator the Big Bang in the other hand says that everything formed all by itself billions of years ago with no creator necessary or desirable everything is explainable by current theories now the basic theme of tonight is that although we are told constantly over and over and over again that science has it all figured out that evolution is the answer that there are no problems in this theory whatsoever I'm here to tell you that's not true we're going to talk about a lot of problem you say a lot some of the problems that exist in an evolutionary view of astronomy today as you can see I have a picture of the solar system this is not to scale of course in reality would be spread out much further obviously there's a sign in the middle going out words from the Sun we have Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune and out here is the orbit of Pluto Pluto being the furthest from the Sun we're going to limit our talk tonight to these objects there's a lot more within a strong we could talk about obviously but this is all we have time for tonight we're going to go through each of these planets and show that each one in a unique way disproves evolution and when you are being told that evolutionary astronomers have it all figured out well you can judge for yourselves what to think of the opinion when we're done tonight the standard model according to evolution says that our solar system formed billions of years ago from a large swirling cloud of gas and dust this cloud is usually called the nebula thus this is called the nebula theory you might hear that phrase being used so the nebula began to rotate as it was swirling as it rotated it also flattened into a disc a central bulge in the middle formed as it was rotating and became our Sun smaller collections of material around and then became the planets so here's an artist conception of what this might have looked like is there any way we can lose the dinosaur Bruce am i doing something wrong thank you yeah galloping dinosaurs aren't really appropriate that's Saturday morning right the dinosaur talk yeah okay so here's an artist's conception of what the early solar system used to look like according to evolution you see there's this big swirling cloud of gas and dust there's the central bulge in the middle which is already forming into a Sun notice here there's rocks forming I'll talk about that in just a minute notice also that this whole thing is a flattened disc it's no longer a big circular cloud it's flat and rotating around the forming Sun now as this gas and dust coalesced larger grains of dust formed within it these stuck together to become rocks and the small rocks stuck together to become bigger rocks and the bigger rocks stuck together to become what are called planetesimals that's a word that you'll hear a lot in astronomy but not really anywhere else so I'm going to use the word asteroid tonight when I talk about planetesimals but it basically means big rock in space so the asteroids formed from the smaller rocks and they stuck together to become planets so that's where the planets come from and here's an artist's conception of a later stage in that process you see we have a nice Sun out here we have a nice planet here and there's still a lot of rocks forming in some cases colliding with each other but eventually they all stick together and they all became planets and that's where we all came from so this basically is the hero of the story this is actually this is a real asteroid in space today but I'm going to use it for illustration of what a planetesimals looks like one of these early rocks that isn't quite a planet yet because it still needs to stick together with a couple of its brothers and and make planets so basic idea is gas dust stuck together make rocks rocks make bigger rocks they eventually turn the leads to these things asteroids basically and then the asteroids stick together and become planets well there's only one problem with this model that's it doesn't work oops I'm getting into myself okay evolutions will tell us that proof quote-unquote for this model is that the theory explains the flat shape of our solar system I showed you how everything turned into a disk and indeed in our solar system today all the planets do rotate our orbit around the Sun in a disk sort of shape obviously there's no physical shape there if you know what I'm saying all their orbits with the exception of Pluto which we'll talk about I'll line up with each other and what is called the plane of the ecliptic so this model explains the plane of the ecliptic in the fact that all the planets orbits line up with each other it also explains the fact that all the planets orbit counterclockwise around the Sun it also explains the fact that the inner planets closer to the Sun are rocky whereas the outer ones are made of gas part of this model says that the closer you were to the Sun the hotter it was well that's not brain surgery there but the higher temperature made it impossible for water and volatile gases to condense thus the only things that could condense out of the cloud close to the Sun or rocks the further away you got from the Sun however the cooler it got and so you can have larger gas planets like Jupiter and Saturn and so on is every with me so far am I getting too too detail okay minor detail with this whole model is that it doesn't work you can you can model how gas and dust will stick together to make bigger grains of dust and you can maybe even get small rocks out of it but you can't get the planetesimals to stick together into planets here's a quote as an example from a man who actually believed this model once these planetesimals had been formed further growth of planets may occur through their gravitational accretion into large bodies in other words the planetesimals after they get big enough start having their own significant gravitational field and as they pull on each other then they'll accrete they'll stick together and make planets but just how that takes place is not understood so incidentally this is from an astrophysics textbook on page 553 soyou way through 500 pages of all the dust and the grains all the rest of it then you get to the part where the miracle happens and then we skip on and go something else so it makes you feel that your first 500 pages have really been a waste of your time but let's get that now let's look at the evidence without preconceptions as to whether or not evolution or creation or whatever happened and we're going to ask the question with all the things we actually see in the sky I mean throughout the theoretical models about what may have happened let's look at what's in the sky right now and ask which model do these things support do they support the idea that a solar nebula formed from gas and dust billions of years ago or do they support a more biblical model which says that the solar system was formed recently by an intelligent creator for signs seasons and to demonstrate his own glory we will start with the planets closest to the Sun called terrestrial planets because they're like earth they're rocky and not the big-ass planets we have mercury Jupiter Venus Earth and Mars we will take them one at a time we'll start with mercury mercury is the closest planet to the Sun it's tiny it's smaller than all of the planets except Pluto it's even smaller than Ganymede and Titan which are moons of Jupiter and Saturn being so close to the Sun Mercury is around a hot place if you are on the side facing the Sun temperatures get up to hunt 840 degrees Fahrenheit on the other hand if you're on the side away from the Sun temperatures go down to minus 180 degrees so very big temperature differentials there now looks a lot like our moon it's small as rocky it has impact craters from where things have hit it and so on this picture here incidentally has colorized all of our photographs from the most part came from the Mariner 10 space probe which took black-and-white pictures but from subsequent analysis scientists have figured out that if we had taken colored pictures excuse me they would probably look like this the streak here by the way is a spot where we don't have photographs for so that's not actually part of mercury so here's what the planet looks like now let's see how well it fits with the evolutionary model mercury is a little planet but it's given illusionists some big surprises our first occurred when the Mariner 10 space probe first visited mercury we measured the planet's gravitational pull on the probe and we took some other measurements at the same time we discovered that mercury is extremely dense there's a lot of material in a small space in mercury in fact it's the highest known density of all planets except Earth the problem is mercury is too small to have such a high density it there's it's small enough to where it doesn't have a large gravitational field bus should not have compacted all the material to such a density in fact we believe that up to 75% of the radius of mercury is represented by an iron core which is this thing here so in this little cutaway view if this is the planet then this is one big ball of iron on the inside so mercury is mostly a big ball of iron wrapped in a few rocks now this is a big problem for evolution though evolutionary nebula theories say that mercury can't be this dense not even close to it and this is caused evolution is all sorts of fits trying to accommodate it into their model here's a quote from an evolutionist he says the driving force behind previous attempts to account for mercury has been to fit the high density of the planet into some preferred overall solar system scheme it has become clear that none of these proposed models work and the high dense so how do they explain this ok mercury doesn't fit in the evolutionary model well the high density is conveniently accommodated by the large impact hypothesis which makes mercury unique well what is a large impact hypothesis basically it's the idea that since evolution can't explain mercury and because the planet has to be far less dense than it is therefore since as we know evolution is true mercury must have formed according to the evolutionary model but early in its history one of those asteroids that we saw circling the Sun crashed into it now all the lighter material was stripped away and dissipated somehow leaving behind only the dense material that we see today ok so mercury today doesn't match evolution since we know evolution is true therefore it must have used to match evolution if I can put your grammar bit but an asteroid crashed into it and changed it to what we have today so what was the evidence for this collision well I back up a minute this is the solution to the problem ok one of these asteroids that we saw earlier forming along with the planets smashed into Mercury and all all the stuff that should have been there just went away somewhere so what's the evidence for this model well only that if it didn't occur Mercury we just prove evolution anybody see a problem with this but that wasn't enough mercury gave evolutionists another rude jolt when Mariner 10 also discovered that mercury has a magnetic field problem there's a court in evolution that can't have a magnetic field and to explain why I'm going to get into some geek stuff here forgive me for a minute the only way for a planet to have a magnetic field actually back up the only way for a planet with a magnetic field to be billions of years old is currently known as the dynamo theory the dynamo theory says that there is liquid inside of a planet that conducts electricity and is moving around and that motion creates a magnetic field and I won't get into details because it's complex thing the important thing for tonight is that it requires that all planets which have magnetic fields also have cores made up of molten metal metal that's melted liquid and as I said fluid motions inside this liquid core can supposedly generate a magnetic field around that planet which like I said is a complicated process I won't bore you with details so let's summarize that up here in order for planet to be billions of years old and still have a magnetic field there must be fluid motions inside of its core therefore the core itself must be molten enhance to be fluid but as one evolutionist says mercury is so small that the general opinion is that the planet should have frozen solid eons ago therefore Mercury's core Mercury's core cannot be molten and so evolutionary theories say that mercury can't have a magnetic field but it does now I've probably lost at least some of you in the details there but the important thing is evolution says there can't be magnetic field and when we send a space probe to visit that planet it did have one so how do they get out of this well here is it the proposed explanation a pure iron core would have frozen long ago like I just told you so the most likely candidate is an iron sulfide core in other words the core isn't pure iron there's some sulfur mixed in with it the presence ok now sulfur would allow the core to cool more slowly okay but the presence of the volatile elements sulfur as a constituent of the planet closest to the Sun and I'll way through the jibber-jabber here in a moment for you has important implications for models of planetary accretion if mercury contains up substantial sulphur content then this removes much of the rationale for heliocentric joining of nebula composition I al read the rest of it models in which mercury retreats from high-temperature components only are no longer viable if the innermost planet has a substantial volatile components there is little basis for condensation models of planetary accumulation basically Center distance what does all I mean well if you think of when I told you about that big swirling cloud of gas and dust and how the closer you are to the Sun the hotter it is and so certain elements can't have condensed into planets there well one of those things that can't have condensed into a planet is sulfur because sulfur is very volatile so to rescue mercury for evolutionary theories mercury has to have had or has to have actually today even sulfur in its core but the whole nebula theory says that you can't have sulfur in a planet that close to the Sun so let's summarize this in order to preserve a billions of years age for mercury evolution speculate that it has an iron sulfide core but the nebular theory says volatile elements like sulfur can't be this close to the Sun so in trying to rescue mercury for their evolutionary theory they've undermined the entire theory the my mic just go went off a minute now as creationist we have a problem with this there are other methods for a planet to have a magnetic field than the Dynamo Theory the problem is none of them can last for billions of years it's very possible that if mercury was created with a magnetic field initially that that field could still be there today in the form of remanent magnetism and actually that explanation makes the sense for a lot of the planets as we'll see as we go but the only way to get one that lasts billions of years is this dynamo theory business that I just explained to you and Mercury says doesn't work so here's what you aren't being told about Mercury next time you see a science program but mercury and how it evolved is that in the other here's what you aren't being told number one evolution says it can't be dense but we found out it is number two evolution says it can't have in any field but it turns out it does and trying to rescue evolution from the facts just makes the problem worse as we saw when you change your model of mercury to make it fit in the billions of years then your entire Theory blows up mercury is indeed the tiny tiny planet that causes huge problems for evolution first Corinthians 1:27 comes to mind but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and chosen the weak things of the world confound the things which are mighty next to mercury further out from the Sun is the planet Venus now if you look at Venus and a telescope you won't look at your you won't see anything like this picture here this picture is actually generated from measurements we've taken of the planet surface underneath it's cloud cover Venus actually looks more like this because Venus is totally covered in clouds in fact those clouds make Venus a very unpleasant place to be the atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide and the clouds are mostly concentrated sulfuric acid so you don't want to be breathing the air in Venus the carbon dioxide causes a massive greenhouse effect which makes Venus actually the hottest place in the solar system it's not the closest to the Sun but it is the hottest place 900 degrees fahrenheit on the surface of Venus there have actually been a few spacecraft landed on the surface of Venus they don't survive very long a matter of a couple of minutes if you can imagine trying to engineer something that when you land it the solder starts dripping out of your circuit boards you can appreciate the engineering problem that these people had but we have actually as I said landed a few the Soviet Union back when it was still around actually did more with Venus than we did the pressure on Venus is 90 atmospheres so if you imagine a place where you're breathing sulfuric acid you're in a nice cool 900 degrees Fahrenheit and being crushed by 90 atmospheres of pressure the biblical description of Hades comes to mind now Venus is often called Earth's sister planet because it's very similar to the earth in the size mass the stuff it's made up of in its location in space because we're right next door to Venus now evolution says that Venus should action should actually be very similar to earth because both planets supposedly formed at the same time at the same place from the same materials by the same natural processes so since there's no interference by creator they should be roughly the same right well they are similar as I said in size mass and Composition but earth has a crust made up of multiple tectonic plates venus only has one so there's a glaring dissimilarity in the structure of these two planets also Earth has a magnetic field Venus as it turns out has none they've looked for it it should be there but an 8 so even though the Dynamo theory says that it should have one it doesn't other problems for evolution Venus the surface is very young and fresh it doesn't have billions of years of erosion apparently the few spacecraft that survived long enough actually send back pictures showed rocks with very sharp edges now if you imagine a rock and 900 hide it doesn't melt in the liquid but it does sag and get soft over time so Venus if it's billions of years old should have evidence of this billions of years on its surface it doesn't another big problem that shocked people back in the sixties was first discovered is that Venus rotates backwards in other words here is how the planet rotates today if you were on the surface of Venus and could actually see through that cloud cover which you couldn't but assuming you could the Sun would rise in the West and set in the east Venus rotates this way whereas it's supposed to rotate that way according to evolutionary theories of how all these things got there so how does evolution accommodate this well you see venus did form according to evolution but then a long time ago things happen the original explanation was that there was gravitational breaking on a tidal bulge in other words there was a bulge on the surface of Venus that gravity from other things grabbed ahold of and slowed it down and spun it around the other way but then we found out venus doesn't actually have a tidal bulge it's almost perfectly round so today's clinician is that Venus did form as predicted by evolution but then an asteroid hit it and spun it around the wrong way so here we again here again we see the solution so what is the evidence for the supposed collision well Venus is axial tilt in other words its tilt relative to the ecliptic plane is only 2 degrees or being perfectly perpendicular if something had smashed into Venus you would think it would not get over a little bit I mean if it's something hit it hard enough to spin it all the way around the opposite way also its orbit is the most circular in the solar system is circular up to two decimal places no evidence for any collision whatsoever oh but there is the fact that otherwise Venus would contradict evolutionary theory so we know it's true so here's what you aren't being told about Venus evolution says it should be similar to Earth but it has no magnetic field and it's crustal structure is very different its surface is obviously young and it wrote in comedian Li rotates the wrong way now we'll go on to the planet which is near and dear to all our hearts it being home and everything earth earth is uniquely designed for life there are conditions here that there that we've not found anywhere else in the universe first of all our rotation period in other words how fast we spend in our axis which determines how long our day is currently it's 24 hours but there's no reason it has to be 24 hours right times in the solar system go from 10 hours out to forget the number up top my head but it's I believe 200 some odd days so and hope we can edit the tape that that's wrong but anyway there's no reason our day has to be 24 hours long however if our day was too slow that would mean extreme temperature changes because one part of the planet would be facing the Sun for a lot longer than the other side so it'd be really hot on one side are really cold on the other side on the other hand if we rotated too fast we'd have violent winds on this planet which would make life here impossible our axial tilt is moderate which gives us moderate seasons again there's no real reason for that actually tilts very dramatically all over the solar system as we will see but the one we have been blessed with gives us very moderate seasons we also have a nice circular orbit which gives us stability in our climate as we change from seasons to seasons and none of this should really surprise us because Isaiah 45 says that the Lord Himself has formed the earth and made it he has established that he created it not in vain he formed it to be inhabited so God made it for us to live here so we shouldn't be surprised that it's perfectly suitable for us to do that we also have a nice atmosphere surrounding our planet it nurtures us protects us from deadly radiation on the one hand gives us air to breathe on the other and this again can be a widely varying characteristic across the solar system but ours is just right if we had a thicker atmosphere or when they had different gases in it we would ever make greenhouse effect just like Venus does on the other hand if we went too far in the opposite direction we could have runaway glaciation and be living on a big ball of ice so our atmosphere is just right we also have been blessed with a tremendous tremendous amount of water seventy percent of the earth's surface is covered by water water is of course necessary for life it's also unusual at least from an evolutionary perspective because none of it should be there remember we talked about that swirling cloud of gas and dust how certain things can't have condensed close to the Sun well we're too close to the Sun to have all this water so where did it come from well we didn't used to have it but after everything was formed comets and other materials that had water came in and hit us now time for a question I don't know how much the very speakers this weekend will be getting into Noah's Flood there are certainly enough materials on the book tables out there if you're unfamiliar with all the evidence for a global flood but the earth has more than enough water to flood its entire surface this isn't really the main point of my talk but I wanted to mention it while we're talking about water there's lots of evidence a global flood has occurred and again if you're unfamiliar with that idea I recommend some of the materials on the book tables to you however such a flood is considered unscientific because it because it is a non repeatable catastrophe and there's no experiment you can do in the laboratory to prove that an event in history has happened well it's true that you can't perform experiments but there is a lot of evidence for it and we will see in just a few minutes how consistent the evolutionists are when they criticize us for this part of our model quick question though how much water is there really on the surface of the earth I mean people you tell when you believe in the flood of Noah and they say well whatever water go just obviously we're not enough water to flood the earth because we live on dry land well if you were to squish down all the mountains on the earth and you were to push up all the ocean floors so that the Earth's surface was perfectly smooth obviously the water would cover the earth right because there's water if everything was smooth would there be nowhere per to drain into it would just distribute itself across the whole globe how deep would that water be and the answer is over a mile and a half so we have more than enough water to have flooded this entire place the only thing that is different now than it was then is that we have deeper ocean floors and slightly higher mountains probably probably before Noah's Flood the earth was a lot different since all the mountain ranges have fossils on their very tips all the mountains used to be under water that's not to say that the water used to be the depth of Mount Himalaya but it is to say that the mountains used to be a lot lower and the ocean floors probably were a lot higher Psalm 104 incidentally talks about the waters draining down off the land into the place where God assigned for them I personally believe that scripture is talking about the flood anyway why don't I mention it here while we're talking about water we also have a very protective magnetic field now I've mentioned magnetic fields a couple times already this helps us in living here not only does it allow us to use compasses and so on but a lot of Wildlife uses our magnetic field also birds and butterflies and all those things that migrate thousands of miles they're apparently able to send them and that it feels somehow and navigate by that the problem from an evolutionary perspective I've already told you that mercury shouldn't have a magnetic field but does Venus should have one but doesn't well they can't explain why we will have one either I told you about the whole dynamo theory I didn't give me any details that's because the details are actually kind of lacking what causes our field supposedly like I said fluid motions inside the core here or swirling around and causing a magnetic field the problem is this theory doesn't work and not only does it not work with other planets it doesn't work for this one and this one is the one that the theater was explained to it was invented to explain here's a quote from evolutionists the mechanism for generating the geomagnetic field remains one of the central unsolved problems in Geoscience so when the evolutionist tells you he has it all figured out call a compass out of your pocket and say well how come this thing turns when I do this seems pretty simple right I mean pretty basic thing to be able to explain if you say you have it all figured out in fact it gets worse for the evolution is because since we first measured our magnetic field in 1829 its total energy has fallen by 14 percent it apparently loses half its energy every 700 years or so this has been confirmed by archaea magnetic and paleomagnetic measurements which to explain the jibber-jabber there are Kia magnetism is when you take human artifacts from long time ago and measure imprints on like rust particles and stuff baked into clay pots or whatever when when you bake a clay pot it turns out and you heat things up to a certain point the magnetic field of that object is in will actually be imprinted on metal particles in the clay so by taking old clay pots we can measure magnetism in those little particles and figure out what the errors been that if you look like however many hundred years ago we're talking about paleo magnetism is doing the same thing but with things that aren't human artifacts like LA deposit or something so a point is we can measure older magnetic field imprints and these not only show the total energy is falling but they show wild fluctuations of polarity in the past our field has been swinging in polarity in other words north and south reversing directions violently sometimes it turns out because of all this our field can only be tens of thousands of years old not billions and dynamo theories can't explain any of this incidentally that's why I led this particular evolution is to say magnetism is almost as much of a puzzle now as it was when William Gilbert wrote his classic texts concerning magnetism magnetic bodies in the great Megan earth in 1600 so 400 years later we're still trying to figure it out hmm so here's what they aren't telling you about the earth is uniquely designed for life its rotation period axial tilt orbit atmosphere and many other things there's plenty of water here for the flood even though evolution says it shouldn't have any at all and the magnetic field can't be billions of years old now we have a neighbor our moon the moon is also uniquely designed it's close enough so that it's gravity creates tides in our oceans this actually prevents the oceans for being stagnant the tides as they come and go help the ocean to circulate and prevent stagnant water and layering and all sorts of other things I'm not an oceanographer but this is what the experts say conversely if the moon were significantly closer the tides would be too much and harmful to us imagine having a tsunami on the coast twice a day wouldn't be a good place to live so the moon's placement and its effect on us actually helps this be a nice place for us to inhabit and the moon is incidentally at exactly the right distance to produce certain kinds of signs and seasons I'm talking about solar eclipses now the moon is much smaller than the Sun it's only one 400th the size of our son however by an amazing coincidence the Sun is 400 times further away from us than the moon is as a result the apparent size of the moon and the Sun are exactly the same as viewed from the earth which is why as the moon goes around the earth sometimes it becomes it it winds up in between us and the Sun and we get solar eclipses which I'm told I've never seen a full one but I'm told that a full one is an awe-inspiring sight now there's an article written awhile back trying to calculate the chances of this happening just by random coincidence and you know it's ridiculous nothing else in solar systemin comes close to the system we have with the earth the moon of the Sun the way it's all positioned the moon is also uniquely studied it's the only other object besides earth that people have actually landed on and walked on the famous photograph of Neil Armstrong but we went there to do more than just plant the flag and say wow this is nice we also wanted to study this thing to explore as much of it as we could first of all you'll notice large dark areas on the moon here those are called Miria it is believed that these are the lunar equivalent of lava where something hit the moon hard enough to actually crack the crust and lava oozed out of it to fill in all these basins and then as after it cooled is a different color than the rest of the terrain you can see the lunar terrain by itself is fairly featureless but when you see the intersection between some of the mariya and some of the Highlands you can see how this looks like it these mountains were here earlier and then it was all filled in by this material which sort of flattened it all out and cooled now the interesting thing with the moon is I showed you a moment ago let's see if I go backwards in this thing hey it works I showed you a moment ago that this side of the Moon has quite a few of these mariya and depending on where the Sun was when you take the photograph these Mary are either accentuated or diminished depending how the light falls on them but other photographs on the moon will actually show more of these than this large areas covered in this material indicating that this side of the moon was beaten up pretty bad at some time in the past well you would think then that since this all happened over billions of years from all these planetesimals crashing into each other that the opposite side of the Moon should look the same way but when we first started flying spacecraft around it we were surprised to find that it isn't there's craters on the opposite side of the moon certainly but there's no mariya like this so the moon appears to be asymmetrically beaten up something whacked this side hard a couple of times and not the other side now does this seem like the moon was going through this cloud of asteroids for billions of years getting which case through random chance you would expect they would be evenly distributed it doesn't seem to work that way though one of the big questions that the Apollo missions were meant to answer is where does this thing come from part of the astronauts job why they were walking around is to take samples this is Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt who is actually a trained geologist taking samples and they brought back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks which we put in the laboratory and analyzed them and did all sorts of fun stuff the Apollo missions were supposed to answer this important question which one of these three theories is correct at the time the Apollo missions went up there were three competing theories the fish in theory the nebula theory and the capture theory each one of which claim to explain where the moon came from and Apollo was supposed to help decide which one was correct let's talk about each one of them the fish in theory says that the early Earth was spinning rapidly and then as it was spinning a chunk of material tore off of it and became the moon and in some variations of this theory the Pacific Ocean basin is actually the place where the moon came from so that big spot on the earth where there's no continents that used to be stuff there that tore up and became the moon the problem of this theory is that when the astronauts actually brought back some rocks they found out that earth rocks are different than moon rocks in some very important ways the moon is deficient in iron for example and if the moon actually used to be part of the earth then the rock should be the same right also there's a problem - the earth would have - would have to have been spinning very quickly for this to have taken place somewhere around two-and-a-half hours for the earth to zip around on its axis once where what now takes 24 hours would need to have happened in just about two-and-a-half so the earth would have had to been spinning very very fast the problem is where did all that excess rotational energy go because obviously today the earth is spinning only 110 for that fast somebody comment on this and said if the rotation of the earth have been slowed by tidal friction from four hours to 24 hours there would have been an energy dissipation of big number such an energy release is sufficient to raise the temperature of the entire earth by a thousand degrees Celsius in other words to slow the earth down there's a lot of energy that's going into spinning it that you get a take away and has to go somewhere if that was dissipated by friction among the tides and the earth as the theory says this guy calculated that all that energy going into the earth itself would have raised the temperature of the entire earth to a thousand degrees up by excuse me a thousand degrees Celsius which among other things would have boiled away all the oceans so the fact we still have ocean says this didn't happen so the fish in theory had some serious problems the nebula theory one of its competitors says that the early Earth formed out of a swirling cloud of gas and dust sort of a miniature version of that solar system thing I told you about and the moon just happened to form at the same time as the earth did the problems with this number one getting a cloud of gas and dust to collapse into two bodies like the Earth and Moon are today has some problems number two why doesn't Venus have a moon if this natural process happened all by itself then how come our sister playing a quote unquote that form the same way we did doesn't have the moon while we do substantial difference between two planets there number three the moon's core is proportionately smaller than the Earth's they should have been the same if this gas dust thing was where they both came from and then before has already mentioned Apollo missions show that lunar rocks are different than Earth rocks which wouldn't be true if they came from the same cloud so much the nebula theory so the capture theory the third idea must have bent it then this idea says that the the moon was actually formed elsewhere in the solar system thus conveniently explaining that in community difference between moon rock earth rocks and was wandering through the solar system one day and happened to water too close to the earth and got pulled into orbit where it set up nice housekeeping it has been ever since that is where did the excess energy go it turns out that there's a fairly basic concepts and physics that's being violated here as the moon gets closer it's being accelerated by the Earth's gravity by the time it arrives assuming it doesn't actually hit the earth let's say it's off to the side here by the time it arrives it will have enough energy to escape the earth going in the opposite direction it is impossible for one object to wander on by and get pulled into orbit like this you have to slow this object down somehow you have to break it somehow well I won't going to detail Matt but basic problems idea is that the physics say it can't happen and second problem with this one is that although lunar rocks are different than Earth rocks in some respects like I said iron they are the same as Earth rocks and other respects and some of their isotopes so the fact that they're different in some respects torpedoed the first two theories the fact that they're the same in the other respects torpedoed this one so at the time Apollo went up they were supposed they were hoping to reconcile these three not reconcile but find out which one of these three theories was correct and it's interesting reading the the arguments about those theories at the time each proponent of each theory didn't say well my theory is better because of X Y & Z they all said well it can't be your theory because it has problems a B and C so they were all pointing fingers at each other showing why each other was wrong so in a sense they were all right because they were all wrong here's a quote from the time in spite of everything that we have learned during the last few years we still cannot decide between these three theories notice this is seven years after Apollo first landed we will need more data and perhaps some new theories before the origin of the moon is settled to everyone's satisfaction when a scientist says I need new theories what is he admitting about his current ones right now as it turns out right about the same time actual in the mid 70s there was a new theory proposed right that's right earth was hit by one of those big asteroids in this case a really really really big asteroid roughly the size of Mars incidentally it came along and hit the earth early in its life span if I can apply life to a planet and the material sprayed out into space some of it fell back to earth the rest of it coalesced into the moon where we see it today that's basically I just said now computer simulations have proved this to be true and if you poke around on the web you can actually see some nice computer graphics some computer simulations and so on showing you exactly how all this happen well here are some problems of that number one it's not proof at all it's just a story right I can concoct all sorts of stories but that's not proof of any kind right number two it's not even necessarily a good story computer simulations are approximations trust me on this one from someone who's written computer simulations on space vehicles and such you can think your thing is working just peachy and producing all kinds of good results and no it's very difficult to write a simulation because think about it you're trying to simulate something that's never been seen observed or can't be simulated in a laboratory how do you know if the computer is producing the correct results well the way you do it is you try to run some test cases through it first of things that you know are right but very difficult problem and computer simulations are by their nature imprecise anyhow especially when you're modeling things on an astronomical scale and I won't bore you with details but that's almost up in itself in this particular case also the computer simulation shows that everything had to be just right you had to have an object of exactly the right size that came in at exactly the right speed it hit the earth at exactly the right angle for even come close to working so even if it was possible it's very very improbable there's no question though and that's why doesn't Venus have a moon if this all happened by itself because all these asteroids are flying around right then Venus which underwent all the same processes that we did made from the same stuff at the same time the same place by the same processes should be similar then we would expect it to have some kind of moon right if this is so inevitable that we got one but Venus doesn't another problem with it is it requires the moon to have been formed four-and-a-half billion years ago which incidentally is the age that you'll hear that the moon is if you look this up but the moon can't be that old here's why one of the things that the Apollo missions did other than that they left some things behind besides footprints and one of them is these light reflectors here we've left several behind and the Soviet Union actually some of their unmanned probes left a couple behind - here these are the locations on the moon where these things are sitting the purpose of these was to be able to bounce laser beams off of them from the earth and have the light come back now this is a very hard thing to do as you can imagine it's that they're doing this today still and it's successful when they get a few photons of laser light back I mean it's a really tough problem but in so doing that like I said they have been doing this for years they've discovered that the moon is actually receding from the earth as we've been bouncing lasers off it through year by year we're measuring the amount of time the laser takes to leave and come back and we've discovered as I said the moon is actually moving away from us slowly over time let's see do I have another Sloan news I do the moon is actually receding from us about one and a half inches per year now that's not a whole lot maybe excuse me but think about this if it's moving away from us year by year then if you look backwards in time year by year it's closer to us right now work that back and the way the math works in this actually if I want to explain how this is working first of all it has to do with tides the moon is out here the earth is here in this high-tech diagram and these this blue thing here is a tidal bulge tides are caused by the moon's gravity pulling in this case the ocean toward itself so that the ocean is actually thinner here and thicker here thus this tidal bulge now what's going on though is that the earth is rotating underneath this tidal bulge so the earth as it rotates friction between the ocean water and the earth is going this way actually pulling this tidal bulge up slightly okay so the tidal bulge is always being pulled up so the tidal bulge is actually missed I shouldn't say misplace displaced that's more like over here excuse me as a result the moon is being affected by this because that bulge actually has a gravitational force of its own gravitational field I should say it's not much because it's a big big blob of water but it is having an effect on the moon if it was lined up with the earth like I have my diagram here that it wouldn't be a problem but because the earth is always pulling it a little bit forward there's more of it over here slightly than there is down here and so the moon is actually being pulled this way as a tidal bulge is being pulled that way does that make sense everybody so the moon is actually being accelerated slightly in the direction of its orbit and the way orbital mechanics work is if you accelerate something in an orbit if you add energy to it the orbit gets bigger so the result of all this is that the moon is moving away from us slowly each year like I said I wanted to have inches or so but work it backwards the closer the moon is to the earth the stronger this effect gets because the objects are all close to each other and the gravity is stronger so if you work it backwards all the way it turns out the moon would have been touching the earth just one and a half billion years ago and we know that didn't happen I mean nobody accepts this you know it's trying to say that it did there's reasons I couldn't even get close to the earth to be pulled apart by tidal forces but that's not important what we talking about here point is the moon can't have been as a corner or by doing what it's doing for four and a half billion years because one and a half billion years ago would have been touching us which would have been bad for it and us isn't it we one more thing with the moon for several hundred years now people have been observing the moon through telescopes and whatnot and been reporting various things happening these have been assigned the name transient lunar phenomena or TLP for short a TLP is when somebody is looking at the moon and notices something they shouldn't be there it usually takes the form of a smudge appearing on the surface of the moon that dissipates after a while or a glow appearing in a region somewhere that goes away even a flash of light or something now these things only lasts minutes maybe hours they don't last long enough to get a good telescope trained or under the moon to take a picture of it which is why we don't have pictures of this stuff going on that's why they call transient because they pop up and then they're gone before anybody has a chance to look now for a long time now back up a minute I'm not saying that there's aliens on the moon you know flashing spotlights or something not saying that at all what people have believed is going on is that there's volcanic activity on the moon that if you have gas coming out of event or whatever is going to kick up a big cloud of dust you're going to have electrostatic discharge lightning basically going on inside this cloud to dissipate the charge and then when all settles down again so the basic explanation for these things is that the moon is geologically active there's volcanoes small volcanoes going off and whatnot the problem is that the moon is supposed to be four and a half billion years old it's cold cold and dead basically it can't be geologically active because something as small as the moon would have cooled off a long long time ago after it was formed it can't have energy left over now something as big as the earth can retain enough heat and it had more to begin with so volcanoes on this planet doesn't bother anybody but volcanoes on the moon can't be there because that would violate the old cold and dead description of the moon however NASA was finally forced back in 1968 to come out with this document called the chronological catalog of reported lunar events which documented 579 different instances of tlps going on just for your interest I have a couple pictures of the places on the moon where these things have been reported this is the Gassendi crater and Aristarchus plateau especially have had quite a few of these incidents reported for them again we don't have picture these things happening which would be nice if we did because it would defuse this whole debate I mean if there it is but apparently is very real the problem is it violates the old cold and dead principle well maybe it's not old cold in that after all so here's what you aren't being told about the moon there's problems with its origin severe problems trying to explain how this thing got there is not at all what you're being told lunar Accession says it can't be billions of years old because one and a half billion years ago would have been touching us because it's moving away today and transient lunar phenomena also say that apparently it's not old cold and dead as it is supposed to be so the moon is uniquely designed for us basically has a summary of all this actually to put this in there cuz I like the picture so next planet out is Mars are we going too fast I might throw it too much detail everybody yes no okay next out is Mars mop is one of the few objects we have actually landed a spacecraft on and sent back pictures here is what the Martian landscape at least in one location looks like if you were unlucky enough to be stuck there Mars has turned out to be a planet of extremes as we've explored we found some really interesting things this is a volcano called the Olympic Mons it's the largest volcano in the solar system its base is the size of the state of Missouri that's a big volcano we also see dust storms that cover the entire planet here's an example of two photographs that were taken one in June one of September the one in June this is where it was clear and you could see lots of things then a global wide dust storm kicked up and obscured everything so you can see with the difference that makes violent weather on Mars it also has the biggest Canyon in the solar system the Mariner Valley is this thing here I put the Grand Canyon to shame this thing is the length of the continental United States and almost six miles deep and multiple times wider than the Grand King tremendous canyon system stretching across Mars now the big question in the news that whatever Mars pops up is was there water on Mars some of the photographs we get back I mean it looks like there's water erosion that forms some of these things we see maybe like little streams we see what appears to be runoff here and so on you can go through this and find lots of features that look like they were formed by water here's another example that Eva's Valda crater the crater itself is this thing but I'm going to show you a close-up of that little box right now it looks like this now this looks kind of like a River Delta doesn't it like at the mouth of the mists Sippi or a large river that's been depositing sediment in this big triangular shaped forms that's kind of what this looks like it looks like a big drainage thing for a river doesn't it problem is we're seeing some other things happen that look like that or that otherwise we would think were formed by water but we know they're not because we've been watching this ridge here for example here's a picture of in 2002 three years later we see that this erosional feature here has formed and we know that's not I mean if you didn't know you'd think it was liquid water because it looked like water or not but we know there's been no water there so it's being formed by other erosional means there's also photographs like this circulating circulating in the media where they say well look at all those layers of sediment you know sediment was obviously laid down by water so therefore Mars used to be under water at one point or at least large portions of it were now why did they rock us about water well evolutionists love to speculate about water on other planets you may or may not notice this in the news because they do the same thing since life obviously form here by itself but needs water to do so well if we find water elsewhere that might mean life elsewhere too and life elsewhere would confirm evolution right maybe there's even intelligent life elsewhere more highly evolved in us so we can go learn from these ascended masters yeah the new-age step works in evolution big time well the oceans must be awfully thirsty because liquid water on Mars is actually physically impossible marzu has a very thin atmosphere today and as a result even though it's very cold the boiling point of water is very low because of the thin atmosphere and if you did have a puddle of water it would boil away in a few hours you can't have liquid water on Mars the problem is evolutionists want water on Mars really badly in fact some want enough water to flood the entire planet this creates a problem doesn't it you see Mars used to have a bigger atmosphere enough to accommodate water but then a long time ago an asteroid came along smashed into Mars stripped away the atmosphere and it's left with what we have today now this is total hypocrisy think about this there can't be water on Mars we know this I mean we've had spacecraft there taking samples and taking pictures but they want a global flood there for various reasons therefore they have this asteroid that created a one time catastrophe on the other hand earth is covered with water there's more than enough to have a global flood here but we're mocked for believing in one because catastrophes are unscientific another factor here is that a lot of the so-called water like features on Mars have other explanations for example there's a thing called the thermokarst whereas we have ice in the ground if it melts the ground collapses in such a way that it looks like water ran off and I showed you the example also of the gully that's been eroding as we're watching with no water being present so we've seen a lot of these things form without water yet they insist that there must have been water there anyway even though there can't be also we've taken soil samples by some of our probes and we found only trace amounts of carbonates like limestone which would have would have indicated that water used to be there in other words we're looking for things that work for chemicals that would be formed by water if it was there and we're not finding them on the other hand we are finding minerals like olivine which break down in the presence of water so we're finding chemicals that are telling us water didn't used to be there either so here's what you're not being told about Mars next time you hear a news story about all the evidence we're finding for water maybe there's life there first of all the so-called evidence for water has other explanations it doesn't have to have been water for those features to be there number two water is impossible there today anyway and saying that it used to be there is hypocrisy because of the way they criticize us for believing in a global flood in a planet that's covered with water how we doing so far as anybody awake okay I'm worried about showing you pictures of the night sky like you know late at night here I mean people be not enough okay next out from Mars are the planets called the gas giants there's Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune and you are here not right next to it but just for purposes of size to show you how big these objects are the first one is Jupiter Jupiter is sometimes called the king of the planets it is by far the biggest Jupiter's famous for this feature here called the giant red spot this is a huge storm going on in Jupiter's atmosphere it has been there for as long as we have been observing the planet so for all we know it might have been there since creation thousands of years or it might have just started a couple hundred years ago we don't really know exactly but it's been there as long as we've been looking to give you some perspective here is the earth compared to the Great Red Spot so imagine a tornado bigger than the earth that's what this thing is now Jupiter provides a unique challenge to evolution I told you about the fact that the planets can have various times of rotation around their axis it takes the earth 24 hours ticular on our axis Jupiter spins on its axis once every 10 hours imagine something this big spinning around in ten hours the thing is just screaming but the problem is under an evolutionary scenario how two planets spin why do they have spins at all well because as these rocks were forming and aggregating into these big planets of course the the rocks would come in at various directions because this is all random right I mean there's no intelligent creator you know steering any of this so the rocks are going to come in two different directions different angles different speeds and sometimes they'll head on one side which spins the planet this way sometimes they hit on the other side which spins a plan around the other way so in general all these impacts should more or less cancel each other out right because it's all random so it actually turns out to be kind of difficult to get a planet spinning at all in these evolutionary scenarios much less to get something this size spinning around that fast here's a quote from an evolutionist who's been working on the problem we came to the conclusion that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals pro-grade rotation pro-grade meaning in the expected direction pro-grade rotation just can't be explained the simulated bombardment all those rocks plane and then I talked about leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most not once a day so Jupiter should not be spinning around as fast as it is unless there was some sort of non-random element to all these rocks coming in but that's out of bounds because that would you know that would interfere with evolution another question when a Jupiter come from here's a quote from nature science update Jupiter is the largest of all the planets but results in nature now reveal the embarrassing fact that we know next to nothing about how or where it formed as we've said space probes of Jupiter and sample its atmosphere and I shouldn't say sample measured his atmosphere it turns out that the things we expected would be there aren't and stuff that isn't supposed to be there is Jupiter was supposed to match the predicted composition of that early cloud of gas and dust I mean since Jupiter formed out of that cloud and it's big basically a big ball of gas still then the gas should match the gas that it came from but it doesn't so Jupiter's composition doesn't match the predictions of the nebula theory Jupiter also has some really interesting moons we could spend the whole evening just actually each of these things we could spend a whole evening on but here's a small sampling of some of the puzzles that Jupiter's moons have provided for evolution this moon is called a oh it's a little tiny thing see do I have there's a picture in here well it's later on a picture of a shadow of one of these moons you could see how small there is moves of tiny compared to Jupiter Leo is this weird looking thing here and we didn't think much of it until we flew the Voyager spacecraft by it in the 1980s we found some very strange things on eyo eyo is covered in enormous volcanoes this one here has been named tabash tar and look at the size of this thing I mean compared to the planet itself that's the substantial fraction of the surface just this one volcano and eel has others besides these since we have been observing eel for 20-some odd years now you has been constantly covered in a series of volcanic eruptions which is what this thing is these things go 200 miles into space there are some violent eruptions and it's not just one it's a series of these like over a dozen and when one stops another one starts elsewhere these have been continuous for as long as we've been observing the moon the problem is eel is tiny and it's also for two half billion years old right so it should have been cooled off a long time ago the whole old cold the dead principal eel shouldn't be geologically active but apparently it is its neighbors a moon called Europa Europa is the smoothest body in the solar system it's mostly covered with ice you'll hear lots of reports in the news excited reports that there may be water under this ice and of course well there's a lot of there's life and what there's life there's aliens and they're more evolved than we are around or whatever evil has some interesting-looking terrain here as you see these are cracks in the ice surface right next door to Europa though now I just said Europa was the smoothest body in the solar system right next door is the most heavily cratered object in the solar system Callisto now if these things formed at the same time the same place and the same materials in the same processes they should be roughly the same but faint and you can't blame it on different compositions either because both moons are roughly at one-half ice also Europa has a core where Callisto apparently doesn't these two objects are very dissimilar from each other then there's Ganymede which is larger than the planet Mercury actually gaining meat is covered with this weird grooved terrain all these grooves all over the surface with the occasional thing where someone took a paintbrush or something and smooth it all out here's a broader view of that bizarre stuff on the surface of Ganymede I'm not saying I have an explanation by the way I'm just saying they don't they talk about tectonics and so on oh and by the way Ganymede also has a magnetic field that shouldn't be there cause problems too like a mafia is a little tiny when right and close to Jupiter Jupiter's moon supposedly formed out of its own local cloud of gas and dust which would make Elmo Thea a rock but instead it's an ice ball it's the opposite of what it was supposed to have been and we could spend a lot more time in Jupiter's moons but time is limited just remember what you're not being told about Jupiter it can't be spending as fast as it is it can't be made up of what it's made up of you appears to be young gaining me you can't have a magnetic field and the moons caused other problems as well are you seeing a trend here yet is there you know good news for evolution any of this next out from Jupiter is Saturn now of course Saturn has the famous rings that's this is the planet most people think of when you think of astronomy or a planet NOW that where we have the Cassini space probe around Saturn we've got some beautiful pictures of the structure the rings look like they're just one big object from here but maybe this stripe in the middle but it turns out there's actually millions of these things each one is its own little ring and the ring is composed mostly of little chunks of rock and ice there's a few moons got in there too and a few boulders but mostly it's very tiny material all orbiting around Saturn altogether and each of these has its own name and some astronomers specialize only in studying this stuff but oops one of the problems though is that these rings are apparently young by young I mean not billions of years old evolution says after all this time we're still not sure about the origin of Saturn's rings astronomers once thought that Saturn's rings formed when Saturn did 4.8 billion years ago as a sudden planets coalesced from a swirling cloud of interstellar gas but lately he says there's a growing awareness that Saturn's rings can't be so old here's why the Rings are bright and shiny obviously we just saw in the picture but they sweep up space dust as Saturn goes around the Sun this space dust would darken those rings after just a few hundred million years the fact that they're still bright and shiny tells us that the few hundred million years hasn't happened there's also the fact that the moon's outside the rings and ring material are exchanging angular momentum basically one slowing down one speeding up eventually the moons will actually be flung away from Saturn while the other half of the Rings will fall toward the planet that doesn't happen in very long of a time either so since it hasn't happened yet again the Rings must be young but we know Saturn is old so where do these young rings come from they want to guess y'all getting the hang of this now because he speculates that some hundreds of millions of years ago the time when the earliest dinosaurs roamed our planet Saturn had no bright rings then he says something unlikely happened a moon sized object from the outer solar system might have flown nearby Saturn where tidal forces ripped it apart or maybe an asteroid smashed into one of Saturn's existing moons the debris circled the planet and form the Rings we see today etc the Rings have other things that are really puzzling you see these lines going on or the Rings have spokes now keep in mind these are wings this is just chunks of material or brings Saturn at the same time why would it have spokes some of them are braided no one predicted this imagine this I mean the Rings are braided weird stuff it's almost like the Creator created this so we could scratch our chains and say hmm Matt recently when we were looking at the Rings we noticed something else with one of Saturn's moons this is Enceladus and the screen really does not do this picture justice I think the lights are too bright here it's really we can turn some of the lights down or is it too late for that probably no that helps a little bit yeah there we go so here is a movement called Enceladus notice this thing on the bottom of it mmm when we take a closer picture of Enceladus we see this it's it's a pretty moon all by itself but the interesting thing happens when you take a picture behind where the Sun is on the other side of it from where you are because then you see that Enceladus has geysers shooting off of it the moon is looks basically like a deflating water balloon you open a lot of balloons squeeze and the water squirts out that's what this thing looks like in fact when you process the image a little bit more to see how big these geysers are you see they're quite substantial in fact there's been some other weird stuff going on Saturn's rings that they think the materials coming from it's a lotta sand being added to certain of Saturn's rings causing some of the changes we've seen the problem is and it's allowed us is far too old to be doing this it should not be geologically active anymore hmm maybe it's not old now probably now you can say well maybe there's some sort of inherent characteristic to the moons that would have it do this well its next-door neighbor is the same size NEMA s' and not doing this kind of thing at all this is sometimes called the Death Star moon by the way as you can probably guess by this big impact crater something walloped it pretty hard and caused it caused that crater but my point is NEMA sand Enceladus same size one is doing very different things than the other one then there's Titan another moon of Saturn which as you can see by the fuzziness has an atmosphere now Titan's atmosphere was mostly made up of methane and when the Cassini probe arrived scientist were excited to go study this moon finally and figure out some of our theories about the atmosphere were true the problem of having a methane atmosphere if you're billions of years old is that methane is broken down by sunlight so Titan's atmosphere can't last very long it gets broken down quickly therefore the prevailing theories were that Titan has seas of methane all over it to constantly replenish this methane atmosphere the problem is when we got there and actually sort of poking around beneath the clouds there ain't no such thing so evolution is expect to define seas of methane on the on the moon and they are not there so that atmosphere should not be methane after all these billions of years then there's the crowning touch to of Saturn's moons dance what I mean by dance these two pieces of rock that you're looking at orbit Saturn very close to each other a few tens of miles apart are there other orbits what is bigger than the other as you can see that my point is one of these is further away from Saturn and the other one is and every so often they swap roles the one that's in outer orbit moves to be in with inward orbit than the one that's in the inward orbit moves to the outward one and then the orbits having like that way for a while and then they swap again dancing moons neat stuff so here's what you aren't being told about Saturn the Rings are young Enceladus is young Titan is young there's dancing moons there's weird stuff going on in the Rings seems to me the Creator is not only skilled but he appreciates beauty next time from Saturn is Uranus now I wish I had a nicer picture to show you but we don't have any here in Asaf airlie featureless ball of blue green which is why was interesting when we first got close enough from the Voyager spacecraft to start taking some measurements and we got a surprise first of all Uranus has some rings they're very faint this image obviously took some computer processing to show all this stuff and we also were able to show that Uranus has some bands and it's clouds the surprise is that it's all going the wrong way notice this rain goes up and down I don't have the photograph rotated this is how it actually is out in space whereas all the other planets rotate more or less in an up-and-down direction in other words that they spin like a top as they go around the Sun Uranus is sideways it rolls along like a ball as it goes around the Sun now this does not match that swirling cloud of gas and dust model that we talked about you're supposed to have the bigger cloud I'll go in the same direction and smaller local swirls would form going all the planets member that was one of the proofs of the theory right because all the planets are going in the same direction and doing all this nice neat stuff well as we study them a little closer they're not doing that at all so this creates a real problem for evolution now who wants to guess right Uranus formed the way evolution predicted you understand but then a big rock came along and hit it and knocked it over anybody detecting a trend here model for the development of the solar system cannot produce such an orientation that laying over on the side business without averting a collision with another object the problem is that Uranus shows no evidence whatsoever for such a collision first of all your noses orbit is one of the most circular of all the planets showing no events of having the wallop hard enough to knock the whole thing over remember how big your anus was compared to the earth big object right you need a huge collision to do that also yours has orbit lies more closely within the ecliptic plane than any other planet except earth again showing no evidence of such a catastrophe in the past you also have a problem with the moon's the moon's back up a minute the moons of Uranus all orbit this way in other words they used to be this way but when the equator got moved when the whole planet got pushed over you know the moons are here now now you have a question well do the moons form before or after the supposed collision if they formed before how did you move them from doing this to doing that what you can't obviously but if they formed after well how come they orbit an equator here and not some sort of chaotic pattern as a result of the spray pattern of fragments that came out which they supposedly came from you also have a problem in that if you say they were formed after the collision then all the moons combined are only point one percent of the mass of the planet and the collision that was invoked to explain the Earth's moon has the moon be one point two percent so you see there's a real discrepancy between the model the collision that supposedly produced the Earth's moon and the collision that would have had to produce is produce Uranus moons basically the moon shouldn't be there doing what they're doing other problems that this planet presents why doesn't it radiate energy all the other gas planets do Jupiter Saturn and Neptune all radiate more energy into space and they get from the Sun Uranus doesn't if these things formed at the same time the same place and the same materials in the same processes why ain't they doing the same thing worse than that quote to the complete astonishment of scientists the magnetic axis of Uranus is tilted approximately 60 degrees with respect to its axis of rotation it is not known why in other words a magnetic field for this planet is causing problems just as all the rest of them have in this case it's because the magnetic field is not lined up with the plaintiffs rotation and as the cheery on top of the cake the axis is also offset from the centre of the planet Uranus has some moons one of this is Miranda which what am i one of my favorite objects in the solar system I think maybe I can convince you to believe that as well Miranda is a tiny object it's only about 300 miles across but look at all the different kinds of terrain that are in this little tiny object here you have grooved terrain up here with a very neat boundary which I guess the big big screen isn't really showing up all that well you have heavily cratered terrain here likely create a terrain here that's smoother you have coarsely grooved terrain down here you have cliffs over here which I'll talk about a minute you have like a trapezoid here with very sharp edges and a big check mark in the middle of it like the creator said let them figure this one out maybe it's face art I mean look at this nice smooth terrain and then I mean you can almost you can almost draw a line here like someone wearing a paintbrush down the edge of it it also has the highest clip in the solar system it's about six miles high this thing right here imagine standing on the edge and looking down now if you were the evolutionist trying to explain how this thing formed all by itself I mean how would you like to get this job just in this one picture you got you get the paintbrush thing up here you get the checkmark here the different colors and like I said look how sharp that line is we don't normally see sharp lines like this in nature if people draw them but things like this don't usually happen by themselves so pity the poor evolutionist who has to explain this thing really no one predicted anything looking like Miranda well there's an understatement from an evolutionist now the guy said the central problem in modeling the thermal histories of the Iranian satellites is accounting for Miranda who wants to guess the answer yep let's see I click the button okay here's your tax dollars at work here's a quote from a NASA website scientists believe that Miranda may have been shattered as many as five times during his evolution one collision couldn't do it we need five after each shattering the moon would have reassembled from the remains of its former self with portions of the core exposed and portions of the surface buried and then the author has a wave of guilt and is actually honest and says Miranda's appearance can be explained by theories but the real reasons still unknown so they're saying you got to break this thing up and reassemble at five different times another guy notes that although some sort of collisional disruption appears to be required it is not obvious that the present terrain with relief up to 20 kilometers would survive catastrophic disruption and reassembly he's saying that that dramatic terrain I showed you with all the cliffs and all the rest of it he said if you smash this thing into pieces then you're not going to have this type of thing afterwards so here's what you aren't being told about Uranus the sideways rotation disproves evolution is magnetic field disproves evolution is should be radiating energy but isn't and Miranda is a complete mystery next up is Neptune what we do in a time how old is Neptune four and a half billion years old right more or less its old cold and dead just like all the rest of the things we've been looking at none of the above as it turns out Neptune is the furthest large planet from the Sun as 30 times as far away as Earth is so it's in a very cold place but it isn't cold it radiates twice the energy into space that it receives from the Sun nor is it dead that spot right here the great spot has disappeared since the first time we started taking pictures Neptune's atmosphere is changing it's very dynamic it's acting very young not like not at all like something that cooled off billions of years ago in fact next one is actually the most violent place in the solar system we've clock winds there 1,300 miles an hour can you imagine what that would be like and there's yet another magnetic problem for evolutionists posed by this planet in 1986 the Voyager probe discovered Uranus's magnetic field was tilted knocks out like I mentioned a few minutes ago at the time scientists suggested that Voyager had caught the field in the middle of a reversal which is when the magnetic poles switched places so maybe that explain the weird field but then three years later Voyager visit a Neptune and talk about that Neptune's field is doing the same thing so it seems that the possibility of finding two planets both experiencing these reversals is small in other words you can invoke a miracle on the first one but you can't invoke the same thing happening at the same time for someone else now essentially because creationist physicists dr. Russell Humphreys has successfully predicted the strength of both of these fields before they were measured by basing his model on the Bible based on 2nd Peter and some other passages he postulated that all the planets were originally formed out of water that would have certain implications for their original magnetic field which would have had caused leftover random magnetism today and they all laughed at him because his predictions were a hundred thousand times greater than evolutions predictions but it turns out when we actually got there he was right they were wrong Oh the way neither those plans we've been talking about Uranus and Neptune they don't exist here's a quote from strongly magazine astronomers who modeled the formation of the solar system have kept a dirty little secret from you you're as Neptune don't exist or at least computer simulations have never explained how planets as big as the two gas giants could form so far from the Sun bodies orbited so slowly in the outer parts of the sun's protoplanetary disk that gas and dust dust discs that the slow process of gravitational accretion would need more time than the age of the solar system to form bodies with such big mass now you think four and a half billion years would be enough time wouldn't you nope what is clear is that simple banging together planetesimals to construct planets takes too long in this remote outer part of the solar system the time needed exceeds the age of the solar system we see Uranus and Neptune but the modest requirement that these planets exist has not been met by this model by the way everybody I'm quoting in this presentation is evolutionist I meant to say that up front I forgotten so I mean you're hearing admissions straight from the people who actually believe this stuff I like that the modest requirement that they exist hasn't been met well no one could Jamal now how long has this problem been known there were many attempts to model the evolution of the swarm of colliding planetesimals Safarov calculated the characteristic time scales or planetary growth I will read all this he says around Earth it would take ten million years excuse me yeah ten million years but the further you get from the Sun it gets longer and longer when you're at the Neptune it's ten to the ten which is ten billion years which is more than twice as long as the four-and-a-half billion years that they actually have to play with it is clear that in view of the large timescales found for the formation of the outer planets the satisfactory theoretical model for the accretion of planets from diffuse material is not available at present now when did Safra now first do these calculations is this recent news to everybody no he did this in 1972 we've known for over thirty years that those planets aren't there except that they inconveniently are there whenever we look now you'd think this would be a problem it's clear that our level of education of studying plant information is relatively primitive so far it's been very difficult for anybody to action to come up with a scenario that actually produces uranus and neptune who heard about this on the Discovery Channel last week anybody know we have it all figured out right evolution explains everything right no now this that last quote really reveals the heart of this whole matter it's been very difficult for anybody to come up with a scenario that's where the name of this whole game if you can come up with a scenario that's all you need to do evolution seem to believe that the mere act of coming up with a story proves that it all happened that way right I mean that's the logic they use they they run a computer simulation oh look we have it all figured out here's exactly how it happened because they were able to build a model that maybe produces what we see well they can't build the model anyway as we've seen but even if they could it doesn't prove anything right it's a computer model doesn't prove what happened one way or the other in fact as we've seen it's not only a matter of coming up with a story it doesn't even have to be a good story really because think about what we've learned tonight rather than acknowledge their creator evolutions would rather cling to a story that denies the very objects it's supposed to explain you would think that they realize this isn't a good alternative now why is this the case well the creation/evolution thing is really a spiritual battle man is sinful we want to shake our fists at the Creator because if we acknowledge him that we acknowledge sin we acknowledge responsibility we acknowledge judgment and all these other things that we don't want to deal with rather than deal with that we're going to cling to a story that says these things can't be there so here's what you aren't being told about Neptune it looks when it looks youngg excuse me the winds of dynamic storms the heat its magnetic field defies evolutionary fables and the big e here is that evolution says it can't exist at all last plane is Pluto this is an artist conception because we don't have good photographs of this thing it was formerly believed to be an escape moon from Neptune because evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be a planet doing what it does where it is the problem what that has always been that there is actually two objects here there's Pluto and its moon Charon which is very big compared to Pluto and we recently discovered there's two more moons here so it's getting kind of awkward to say that an escaped moon itself has multiple moons what you aren't being told about Pluto what is not much here because we don't know much about the planet the thing is nobody knows what to do with it or is it of them I mean here's here's blue one here whose main moon is this an escape moon is it a planet is it a double planet is it something else entirely well we're not sure we don't know other objects include comet's comets are a good argument for a young solar system some of you have probably heard this argument before comment to basically dirty snowballs that orbit the Sun this is a photograph of the wild to comment that was recently visited and this is about three miles across to give you a sense of the size of this thing basically a dirty snowball going around the Sun that as it approaches the Sun each time it heats up and these nice beautiful tails are burned off away from the Sun as it travels through space now if you think about these Jets of material coming off that means that the nucleus of this thing is getting smaller each time two visits the Sun which is the heart of what I'm about to tell you comets come in two flavors there are long period comets meaning they take more than 200 years to orbit the Sun there's also a lot of short period ones which orbit in less than 200 years and the short period ones are the important ones for our discussion tonight these comments because they visit the Sun so frequently burn out quickly or at least quickly quote-unquote in evolutions terms they can't last for hundreds of millions of years never mind billions because they burn up so why are there still so many short period comets left orbiting the Sun if the solar system is four-and-a-half billion years old they've come up with explanations about how there's this reservoir of comments out in space and place called the Kuiper belt another place called alert cloud the problem is as we're studying those places well the Oort cloud you can't see anyway the place that we can actually measure is the Kuiper belt and the few things where that we're finding there are two few and far too big to be comments anyway so what you aren't being told about comets is that there is no proven source for short period ones which there should be if the solar system is billions of years old if the source is amidst thousands of years old then it's fine because there hasn't been enough time for these things to burn up however that's not what they want to believe what's the bottom line of all this here's a quote from my astrophysics textbooks thus far we have seen that we know very little about the development of the solar system well thank you very much 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 can you believe this would be satisfactory to someone the Bible the other hand tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork and I think that's a more appropriate way to look at the sky one thing I wanna say briefly actually couple things I first put together an astronomy series for a church 10 years ago and it was a 13 class series what you just saw was one class so this level of problems can be found in that class I started out the Big Bang and I went all the way forward in evolutionary history step by step like I said this is one out of the twelve one of the thirteen scuse me so if you imagine this level of problems with each step along the way in astronomy we're always stretching the surface about how we're being I don't say deceive but we're being misinformed about just how well evolution explains everything up there another thing too if you're if you're relatively new to the creation viewpoint of things all I've discussed tonight is one small segment of astronomy I like to make the point that similar problems exist in all the sciences paleontology geology botany zoology anthropology on and on and on it goes this level of difficulty for evolutionary explanations is everywhere what we're being told in the secular media is not at all what the actual information is in many case so do I have time for questions Chris no I know okay I've been shut down good night you

Channel: NW Creation Network

Views: 240,314

Rating: 4.0522647 out of 5

Keywords: creation science, Solar System (Star System), creation astronomy, apologetics, intelligent design, cosmic design, planets, Creationism (Religion)

Id: s9_o7NGTkJc

Length: 88min 6sec (5286 seconds)

Published: Tue Jul 09 2013