Astro-Creation Research

By: Bruce R. Porter

In this blog I am going to depart from the normal theme of this blog site. I began this site to encourage thoughtful discussion about what I believe to be the overwhelming evidences of a young universe and the reality of its creation by an infinitely wise, powerful, and intelligent Creator.

I believe everything in the universe is unfolding according to a master plan. That’s not to say that I don’t think we each have a part to play in this unfolding drama. Actually, I think we do have assignments, and are responsible for our part. That said, we are not responsible for outcomes. That is above our pay-grade.

I’m fascinated by astronomy, and believe that events in the heavens are occurring according to a plan that is revealed in scripture. One particular prediction Jesus made regarding signs people would see just before His return is found in Luke 21:25-26.

And there shall be signs in the sun,
and in the moon, and in the stars;
and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity;
the sea and the waves roaring;
Men’s hearts failing them for fear,
and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth:
for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

Back in August of 09 I wrote of the soon-coming solar maximum. (See: Solar Maximum in 2012 –How Big?) As of today, December 25th, scientists at the Solar Hemispheric Observatory (SOHO) announced that five active regions of intense magnetic activity have erupted on the sun’s surface. This is the first significant solar activity observed for several years during the current cycle of solar minima, and appears to mark the beginning of the expected solar maximum of the current cycle. As my previous blog pointed out, the growing consensus among solar scientists is that this particular solar maximum may be one of the most active in decades. The possible coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and magnetic storms due to an intense solar maximum could have devastating impacts on all electronic communications, and most ominously, power generation systems including the global power grid.

Far from being merely another end-of-the-world warning by the kook-fringe, this is a serious and credible threat that demands immediate action by every nation to harden essential and critical electrical infrastructures against the effects of EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) events. Solar storms are inevitable, and could damage or destroy electrical power generation systems for months or even years. Little imagination is needed to appreciate the devastation and horrendous loss of life the loss of these critical systems could bring on a world nearly entirely dependent upon them for the basic necessities of life.

Am I optimistic that our government will take this threat seriously? Not so much. In fact, I expect that the verses quoted above will occur and a massive solar storm would certainly qualify as a “sign” in the sun. The extent of the worldwide impacts will very likely cause people’s hearts to fail them for fear, “and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth…”

To underscore the seriousness of this threat, I am appending below some online resources that will further your understanding about this. Please understand, I am not trying to merely frighten people. Rather, I am hoping to help educate and awaken as many people as possible to the threat in the hope that enough of us will raise our voices to our government to begin immediate efforts to protect these critical life-dependent systems. The costs would be great, but the price paid for not protecting our electrical grid are incalculable! We have no time to waste! Trust me when I say that all the debate now occurring in Congress over health-care, human-caused climate change, and social welfare systems will instantly vanish into utterly absurd  insignificance if this, (or any subsequent) solar storm strikes our world!

You might say, “If you really believe that these things will happen anyway, why bother raising warnings about it?” I guess I’m just doing my job. It likely wouldn’t occur to me to bother even trying to prep people for these events if I weren’t being moved by God to do so. There’s a purpose in this too. Believe me, writing this kind of stuff doesn’t make me very popular with those who’d rather not be bothered with it. Honestly, I think some folks actually think that unpleasant realities will simply vanish if sufficiently ignored.

Here are some links that will educate you about this subject. If you listen and watch all of it, you’ll prove that you’re an info-junkie like me. If you decide to ignore it and move on with whatever “shiny thing” that happens to be distracting you at the moment, you won’t know what you missed anyway.

Let’s begin with a radio interview with Dr. William Forstchen on the subject of EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse). It was done on the Coast to Coast AM radio program with Art Bell in November. Just click on the arrow in the box below.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Next, you will want to view the series of videos from The Discovery Channel on YouTube below. They share a somewhat dramatized explanation of what a solar storm could do to our infrastructure.

Critics of biblical creation sometimes use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. The argument goes something like this: (1) there are galaxies that are so far away, it would take light from their stars billions of years to get from there to here; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived here; and (3) the universe must be at least billions of years old—much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible.

Many big bang supporters consider this to be an excellent argument against the biblical timescale. But when we examine this argument carefully, we will see that it does not work. The universe is very big and contains galaxies that are very far away, but that does not mean that the universe must be billions of years old.

The distant starlight question has caused some people to question cosmic distances. “Do we really know that galaxies are so far away? Perhaps they are much closer, so the light really doesn’t travel very far.”¹ However, the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound. They do not rely on evolutionary assumptions about the past. Moreover, they are a part of observational science (as opposed to historical/origins science); they are testable and repeatable in the present. You could repeat the experiment to determine the distance to a star or galaxy, and you would get approximately the same answer. So we have good reason to believe that space really is very big. In fact, the amazing size of the universe brings glory to God (Psalm 19:1).

Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.

But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument. Let me suggest that the answer to distant starlight lies in some of the unstated assumptions that secular astronomers make.

The Assumptions of Light Travel-time Arguments
Any attempt to scientifically estimate the age of something will necessarily involve a number of assumptions. These can be assumptions about the starting conditions, constancy of rates, contamination of the system, and many others. If even one of these assumptions is wrong, so is the age estimate. Sometimes an incorrect worldview is to blame when people make faulty assumptions. The distant starlight argument involves several assumptions that are questionable—any one of which makes the argument unsound. Let’s examine a few of these assumptions.

The Constancy of the Speed of Light
It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time.² At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

However, the speed of light is not an “arbitrary” parameter. In other words, changing the speed of light would cause other things to change as well, such as the ratio of energy to mass in any system.³ Some people have argued that the speed of light can never have been much different than it is today because it is so connected to other constants of nature. In other words, life may not be possible if the speed of light were any different.

This is a legitimate concern. The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known. Some creation scientists are actively researching questions relating to the speed of light. Other creation scientists feel that the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light is probably reasonable and that the solution to distant starlight lies elsewhere.

The Assumption of Rigidity of Time

Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.

Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.” So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity.

It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that’s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth’s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks.

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.

Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.

Assumptions of Synchronization
Another way in which the relativity of time is important concerns the topic of synchronization: how clocks are set so that they read the same time at the same time.⁴
 Relativity has shown that synchronization is not absolute. In other words, if one person measures two clocks to be synchronized, another person (moving at a different speed) would not necessarily measure those two clocks to be synchronized. As with time-dilation, this effect is counterintuitive because it is too small to measure in most of our everyday experience. Since there is no method by which two clocks (separated by a distance) can be synchronized in an absolute sense, such that all observers would agree regardless of motion, it follows that there is some flexibility in how we choose what constitutes synchronized clocks. The following analogy may be helpful.

Imagine that a plane leaves a certain city at 4:00 p.m. for a two-hour flight. However, when the plane lands, the time is still 4:00. Since the plane arrived at the same time it left, we might call this an instantaneous trip. How is this possible? The answer has to do with time zones. If the plane left Kentucky at 4:00 p.m. local time, it would arrive in Colorado at 4:00 p.m. local time. Of course, an observer on the plane would experience two hours of travel. So, the trip takes two hours as measured by universal time. However, as long as the plane is traveling west (and providing it travels fast enough), it will always naturally arrive at the same time it left as measured in local time.

There is a cosmic equivalent to local and universal time. Light traveling toward earth is like the plane traveling west; it always remains at the same cosmic local time. Although most astronomers today primarily use cosmic universal time (in which it takes light 100 years to travel 100 light-years), historically cosmic local time has been the standard. And so it may be that the Bible also uses cosmic local time when reporting events.

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility.⁵

The Assumption of Naturalism
One of the most overlooked assumptions in most arguments against the Bible is the assumption of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that nature is “all that there is.” Proponents of naturalism assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws. This is not only a blind assumption, but it is also clearly antibiblical. The Bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural laws (they are, after all, His laws). Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so. In fact, natural laws could be considered a description of the way in which God normally upholds the universe. But God is supernatural and is capable of acting outside natural law.

This would certainly have been the case during Creation Week. God created the universe supernaturally. He created it from nothing, not from previous material (Hebrews 11:3). Today, we do not see God speaking into existence new stars or new kinds of creatures. This is because God ended His work of creation by the seventh day. Today, God sustains the universe in a different way than how He created it. However, the naturalist erroneously assumes that the universe was created by the same processes by which it operates today. Of course it would be absurd to apply this assumption to most other things. A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electricity into light, but the flashlight was not created by this process.

Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today. It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale.

Light Travel-Time: A Self-Refuting Argument
Many big bang supporters use the above assumptions to argue that the biblical timescale cannot be correct because of the light travel-time issue. But such an argument is self-refuting. It is fatally flawed because the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years. This serious difficulty for the big bang is called the “horizon problem.” ⁶ The following are the details.

The Horizon Problem
In the big bang model, the universe begins in an infinitely small state called a singularity, which then rapidly expands. According to the big bang model, when the universe is still very small, it would develop different temperatures in different locations (Figure 1). Let’s suppose that point A is hot and point B is cold. Today, the universe has expanded (Figure 2), and points A and B are now widely separated.

However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great distance— beyond the farthest known galaxies. In other words, points A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today. We know this because we see electromagnetic radiation coming from all directions in space in the form of microwaves. This is called the “cosmic microwave background” (CMB). The frequencies of radiation have a characteristic temperature of 2.7 K (-455°F) and are extremely uniform in all directions. The temperature deviates by only one part in 105.

The problem is this: How did points A and B come to be the same temperature? They can do this only by exchanging energy. This happens in many systems: consider an ice cube placed in hot coffee. The ice heats up and the coffee cools down by exchanging energy. Likewise, point A can give energy to point B in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light), which is the fastest way to transfer energy since nothing can travel faster than light. However, using the big bang supporters’ own assumptions, including uniformitarianism and naturalism, there has not been enough time in 14 billion years to get light from A to B; they are too far apart. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. After all, A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today, and so must have exchanged light multiple times.

Big bang supporters have proposed a number of conjectures which attempt to solve the big bang’s light travel-time problem. One of the most popular is called “inflation.” In “inflationary” models, the universe has two expansion rates: a normal rate and a fast inflation rate. The universe begins with the normal rate, which is actually quite rapid, but is slow by comparison to the next phase. Then it briefly enters the inflation phase, where the universe expands much more rapidly. At a later time, the universe goes back to the normal rate. This all happens early on, long before stars and galaxies form.

The inflation model allows points A and B to exchange energy (during the first normal expansion) and to then be pushed apart during the inflation phase to the enormous distances at which they are located today. But the inflation model amounts to nothing more than storytelling with no supporting evidence at all. It is merely speculation designed to align the big bang to conflicting observations. Moreover, inflation adds an additional set of problems and difficulties to the big bang model, such as the cause of such inflation and a graceful way to turn it off. An increasing number of secular astrophysicists are rejecting inflation for these reasons and others. Clearly, the horizon problem remains a serious light travel-time problem for the big bang.

The critic may suggest that the big bang is a better explanation of origins than the Bible since biblical creation has a light travel-time problem—distant starlight. But such an argument is not rational since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. If both models have the same problem in essence⁷, then that problem cannot be used to support one model over the other. Therefore, distant starlight cannot be used to dismiss the Bible in favor of the big bang.

Conclusions
So, we’ve seen that the critics of creation must use a number of assumptions in order to use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. And many of these assumptions are questionable. Do we know that light has always propagated at today’s speed? Perhaps this is reasonable, but can we be absolutely certain, particularly during Creation Week when God was acting in a supernatural way? Can we be certain that the Bible is using “cosmic universal time,” rather than the more common “cosmic local time” in which light reaches earth instantly?

We know that the rate at which time flows is not rigid. And although secular astronomers are well aware that time is relative, they assume that this effect is (and has always been) negligible, but can we be certain that this is so? And since stars were made during Creation Week when God was supernaturally creating, how do we know for certain that distant starlight has arrived on earth by entirely natural means? Furthermore, when big bang supporters use distant starlight to argue against biblical creation, they are using a self-refuting argument since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. When we consider all of the above, we see that distant starlight has never been a legitimate argument against the biblical timescale of a few thousand years.

As creation scientists research possible solutions to the distant starlight problem, we should also remember the body of evidence that is consistent with the youth of the universe. We see rotating spiral galaxies that cannot last multiple billions of years because they would be twisted-up beyond recognition. We see multitudes of hot blue stars, which even secular astronomers would agree cannot last billions of years.⁸

 In our own solar system we see disintegrating comets and decaying magnetic fields that cannot last billions of years; and there is evidence that other solar systems have these things as well. Of course, such arguments also involve assumptions about the past. That is why, ultimately, the only way to know about the past for certain is to have a reliable historic record written by an eyewitness. That is exactly what we have in the Bible.

Biography: Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D., Astrophysics

Most practicing astronomers and astrophysicists believe in the big bang, a billions-of-years-old universe and other evolutionary ideas.  But based on Scripture and the best interpretation of the scientific evidence, they are simply wrong, according to Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG-USA’s newest speaker and researcher.

An astrophysicist with a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder, Dr. Lisle is now helping AiG (and the creation movement as a whole) refute the evolutionary account of origins—using his strong science background.  He has designed exciting planetarium programs for the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky (near Cincinnati, Ohio).

Dr. Lisle is not the stereotypical “egg-head” research scientist who has difficulty communicating at a layman’s level.  In addition to his talks on astronomy, he has developed an excellent, well-illustrated talk on the topic of “The Relevance of Genesis.”  This Bible-upholding talk is even suitable for Sunday morning services.

More about Dr. Jason Lisle

Now residing in Northern Kentucky, Dr. Lisle lives just a few miles from the border of his state of birth, Ohio.  He grew up in a Christian home, and because his family believed in the authority and accuracy of the Bible, he had little difficulty in dealing with the evolutionary bombardment he received in school.

At the university level, Jason discovered that an important element in scientific study and the drawing of conclusions was this: that scientists usually are not aware of their presuppositions (i.e. they interpret scientific evidence in light of their existing worldview).  It thus made it easier for him to see that intelligent scientists, many who were his professors, can disagree on what the evidence really means, for they have different starting points. So as he read creation materials, he could see that when the evidence was properly interpreted, it always supported the biblical account of creation (even with the thorny question of starlight and time).

In graduate school, Dr. Lisle developed a passion to share the message that God’s Word is true from the very first verse.  He began giving talks encouraging people to trust in the Bible and not compromise with the secular ideas of millions of years of evolution. 

Interests

Dr. Lisle has always had a keen interest in science and enjoys reading books on a wide range of scientific topics.  Astronomy and physics have always been areas of special interest.  One of his favorite hobbies is viewing the beautiful night sky through a telescope.

In graduate school, Dr. Lisle specialized in solar astrophysics.  His areas of interest in creation studies are in developing models of cosmology and stellar aging.  Creationist thinking in these areas is still very preliminary. 

More of his educational background

Dr. Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics.  He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics.  While there, Dr. Lisle used the SOHO spacecraft to investigate motions on the surface of the sun as well as solar magnetism and subsurface weather.  His thesis was entitled “Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism.”  He has also authored a number of papers in both secular and creation literature.

You may read more of Dr. Lisle’s articles at http://www.answersingenesis.org

By: Bruce Reed Porter

Are we about to see some major solar fireworks?

The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun,
and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire.
They were seared by the intense heat
and they cursed the name of God,
who had control over these plagues,
but they refused to repent and glorify him.
(Revelation 16:8-9 NIV)

It’s been nearly two hundred years since the 11-year sunspot cycle was discovered. During that time, astronomers have tried without much success to predict the intensity of the next solar maximum. The last observed major Solar maxima occurred in 1958. Even without the sophisticated satellite detection systems now in place, like the SOHO observatory, people on Earth knew something unusual was up (literally). For example, during that year people as far south as Mexico observed the Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) three times.

We were only beginning to enter the Space Age, with the launch of Russia’s Sputnik in 1957, and the U.S. Explorer 1 in 1958. Electronics were unsophisticated back then, with widespread reliance on vacuum tube gear, which is relatively unaffected by electromagnetic pulses. I remember my family talking about the launch of these spacecraft, and learning about them in elementary school. However, our lives were unaffected by these Solar storms because much of our power grid and communications technology was not nearly as sensitive as they are now to electrical pulses.

That was then, but this is now.

In March of 2006 a research team led by Dr. Mausumi Dikpati of the High Altitude Observatory National Center for Atmospheric Research near my home in Boulder, Colorado made an ominous prediction. She warned that a massive Solar storm is coming—possibly the most intense Solar maximum in fifty years. “The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” she said. If she and her research team is correct, over the next few years we could see a huge increase of solar flares with CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections) and magnetic storms (sunspots) that could far-surpass the last Solar maxima of 1958.

What new discovery has made it possible to make such a prediction?

Dr. Dikpati and her team have discovered a magnetic conveyor belt on the sun.

Recently on Earth, oceanographers discovered what they call the “Great Ocean Conveyor Belt.” It is a whole network of ocean currents that convey ocean water all over the Earth from ocean to ocean somewhat like a conveyor belt.

According to Dr. Dikpati and her team, this magnetic conveyor belt is a large piece of the puzzle in predicting the weather on the sun. This conveyor belt on the sun is a conduit that moves around the magnetic fields like the Earth’s ocean currents. It moves in a gigantic loop from the sun’s equator to the solar poles. Basically, they have discovered a correlation between the movement of this magnetic loop and sunspot activity. For those desiring a more technical understanding of Dr. Dikpati’s research, you may like to read the follow article ¹

Solar physicist David Hathaway of the National Space Science & Technology Center (NSSTC) is the leader of the Heliophysics team at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. He received his PhD in astrophysics from the University of Colorado in 1979. Over the last 30 years he has done extensive research on the dynamics of the Sun’s convection zone and the origin of the sunspot cycle, including developing techniques for predicting future cycles. ²

Dr. Hathaway stated; “First, remember what sunspots are–tangled knots of magnetism generated by the sun’s inner dynamo. A typical sunspot exists for just a few weeks. Then it decays, leaving behind a ‘corpse’ of weak magnetic fields.”

Now, this is were we get to the “conveyor belt” and the cyclical nature of solar storms.

Dr. Hathaway continues; “The top of the conveyor belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up the magnetic fields of old, dead sunspots. The ‘corpses’ are dragged down at the poles to a depth of 200,000 km where the sun’s magnetic dynamo can amplify them. Once the corpses (magnetic knots) are reincarnated (amplified), they become buoyant and float back to the surface. It takes about 40 years for the belt to complete one loop,” says Hathaway. The speed varies “anywhere from a 50-year pace (slow) to a 30-year pace (fast).”

According to Hathaway, when the belt is moving fast, it scoops up tons of magnetic fields and this means the following solar maximum will likely be extremely intense.  ”The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996,” says Hathaway. “Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011.”

Hathaway has high confidence in the conveyor belt model that Dikpati postulated, and along with most others in his field, believes that the next solar maximum should be a massive event. There is only one point regarding Dikpati’s forecast that Hathaway disagrees with. Dikpati calculates the next solar maximum to occur in 2012. Hathaway thinks it will occur in 2010 or 2011. So far, the evidence suggests that Dikpati’s timeline is more accurate.  Hathaway said; “I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.” Problem is, there has been virtually no sunspot activity at all in 06’ through the middle of 09’.

Whatever you may think, or whose prediction is more accurate, one thing is for certain—a significant solar storm may be coming.

How it will affect the Earth is yet to be seen. We’ll soon see won’t we?

 
This video from the History Channel  is a pretty good explanation of how the solar dynamics work. The ending is a bit cheezy, but it will give you the basic idea.

By: Bruce R. Porter

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do!

Earth and moon taken by Galileo's flyby

• http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0811.asp
• Walter H Munk and Gordon J.F. MacDonald, The Rotation of the Earth (Cambridge University Press, 1975), p 198.
• J.O. Dickey, Lunar Laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo Program, Science, Vol 265, 22 July 1994, pp. 482-490

By: Bruce R. Porter

“As the sun’s first ray’s of thermonuclear light
blazed across the galaxy 4.5 billion years ago,
the primal earth emerged from a spinning, turbulent cloud of gas,
dust and planetoids that surrounded the new star.
…On these figures for the age of the earth
rest all of geology and evolution.”

Lawrence Badash, Stellar Evolutionist
Prof. of History of Science, U. of CA, Santa Barbara,
Scientific American, 8/1989, p.90.

In the early 90s I had the distinct honor of meeting and spending some time with Apollo 15 astronaut James Irwin. Col. Irwin, along with Commander Dave Scott, landed on the moon on July 30, 1971 and spent three days exploring the surface with a special moon rover car.

I had always wanted to meet one of the twelve men who actually walked on the moon, and our meeting didn’t disappoint me. Jim was a devoted Christian, and as we talked in my office I was overwhelmed with the amazing stories he told me. Few men have had the opportunity to stand on another heavenly body and look up at the earth. Jim told me that the earth was breathtaking in beauty, hanging like a “blue marble” in the black void of space. He told me of an incident on his second day on the moon’s surface when he stumbled and fell over. At one-sixth the gravity of the earth, the fall was not a danger. He lay on his back for a few moments and looked up at the earth. He told me of the amazing epiphany he experienced when he raised his gloved hand and covered the entire earth with his thumb. “Everything in my life,” he said, “everyone I knew, every place I’d ever been was under my thumb.  I knew I could never look at the earth the same again, and the experience changed my life forever.”

At one point, I asked him a question I’d puzzled over for several years. “Col. Irwin,” I began. “When the first unmanned spacecraft landed on the moon, I remember that one of the big concerns that lunar scientists had was that there might be significant depths of moon dust all over the surface. This was based on well-established measurements of space dust falling on the earth at a known rate. The scientists, assuming that the moon was billions of years old, thought the dust would be a hazard to astronauts. How much dust did you and Dave actually find on the surface?”

Jim smiled, and I could tell this wasn’t the first time he’d been asked that question. “Well, you’re right Bruce,” he began. “We were real concerned about the dust problem and had a lot of briefings on the possible danger. However, we never encountered more than a half-inch to three-quarters of an inch of dust.” Chuckling, he went on. “This was a big embarrassment to some of the evolutionary scientists on the Apollo team, because at those rates the moon couldn’t be older than 10,000 or so years.” 

Sadly, Col. Irwin passed away of a heart attack just a few days after our last conversation. I never forgot what he told me that day in my office. If there was so little cosmic dust accumulated on the moon, what other evidences might there be of a young moon, and for that matter, a young universe?

 EVOLUTION REQUIRES VAST TIME-FRAMES

The Rosetta stone of evolutionary explanations of the origin of the universe and subsequently, all life on earth, requires nearly unimaginable expanses of time. The premise is, if all things came into being through chance random processes of matter and energy, then time is literally of the essence. Without enough time, the incredible complexity of the observable universe would simply be impossible—unless of course—it came about as the result of an Intelligent Designer. This, of course, is the present-day controversy.

What if the scientific evidence doesn’t justify an “old universe?”

 For the past 130 years or so, stellar evolutionists have been doubling their estimates of the age of the earth nearly every 20 years. In fact, just since 1900, they’ve increased the estimated age by a factor of 100. Currently, most stellar evolutionists suggest that the universe is between 13.5 and 14 billion years old.¹

 In this article I’d like to examine just a few of a growing body of scientific observations and data that give strong evidence that the universe is vastly younger than most stellar evolutionists would like us all to believe.

The Poynting-Robertson Effect

 There is a massive cloud of dust particles orbiting the sun. Incredible forces are pulling these particles into the sun at the mind-boggling rate of about 100,000 tons each day. No significant source of replenishment for this disk-shaped dust cloud has yet been discovered. At best, only half of this dust cloud is being filled in by comets and asteroid breakups. At the present rate the sun is vacuuming up this debris, the solar system couldn’t be more than 10,000 years old!

 The reason for this is that the solar wind is striking these particles, slowing them down, and solar gravity is sucking them into the sun. ²

The Shrinking Sun

 Beginning back in 1836, well over one hundred observers working at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have documented that our sun’s diameter is shrinking at a rate of 0.1% every century. To give you some perspective, that’s about five feet per hour, or 120 feet per day, or 8.3 MILES each year! If we run the timeline backward, adding this rate (assuming it is constant) as an expansion factor, in ten thousand years, the sun would be 83,000 miles greater diameter. Let’s have some fun with this…

 Stellar evolutionists often suggest that the earth is something on the order of 4.3 billion years old. Using this shrinkage rate as an expansion factor again, we find that in only 10 million years, the sun would be (accounting for its present diameter of 865,000 miles) over 84 MILLION MILES IN DIAMETER! Remember, the earth is now 93 million miles from the sun, so this would mean that only 10 million years ago the earth would be practically orbiting the sun surface!! Not very good chances for any form of life to “evolve” in such incomprehensible heat and radiation!

 The obvious conclusion the evidence forces us to draw is that even a few million years ago the sun would have completely destroyed the earth!

 In just the past 35 years, scientists have been chagrined by the lack of measurable neutrinos. It has been long assumed by stellar evolutionists that the sun derives its energy from nuclear fusion. If the sun were a fusion engine, we should see more than three times the amount of neutrinos as are being measured. According to this, it is likely a fission star, and we are seeing the right rate of neutrinos. The big problem for stellar evolutionists is that if the sun is a fission engine, it could not possibly be billions of years old. It would have long consumed itself within a few million years! ³

 In my next article we will examine other evidences of a young universe. I encourage you to send you evolution-oriented friends to this blog. I invite your comments and responses.