User:Joseph D. Pelobello (Daniel William "Danny" Wilson)/Unified Creationist Theory

All Bible quotations are from the Good News Translation (GNT) unless otherwise noted, with some slight corrections to fit the original Hebrew.

Day 1: 23 October, 4004 BCE
In the beginning, when Elohim created the universe, the earth was formless and desolate [tohu wa-bohu'']. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit (Ruach) of Elohim was moving over Tehom.''

For me, this implies that, before creation started, the universe was literally covered by an endless, infinite ocean, which the Hebrew Bible calls Tehom. Tehom was also personified as various sea monsters, which fits with Job's statements: No one helped God spread out the heavens or trample the sea monster's back. (Job 9:9) It is his strength that conquered Yam; by his skill he destroyed the monster Rahab. (Job 26:12)

The veracity of the Biblical account can be verified by the similar (but sadly pro-Baal) myths of the Canaanites.

Then light is created: ''Then Elohim commanded, “Let there be light”—and light appeared. Elohim was pleased with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness, and he named the light “Day” and the darkness “Night.” Evening passed and morning came—that was the first day.'' (Genesis 1:3-5)

We're not certain with what exactly the light (and thus the source of the literal 24-hour day-night cycles) are. Even Answers in Genesis is uncertain. Perhaps those light, darkness, days, and nights only apply to the third heaven, above Tehom (which we'll visit on later).

Day 2: 24 October, 4004 BCE
''Then Elohim commanded, “Let there be a dome to divide the water and to keep it in two separate places”—and it was done. So Elohim made a dome, and it separated the water under it from the water above it. He named the dome “Sky.” Evening passed and morning came—that was the second day.'' (Genesis 1:6-8)

The Hebrew word used to mean sky, raqia, is associated with beating metal into thin plates. This fits in with the widely-accepted mythological explanation of the time that the sky was a literal metal dome. But we know Earth isn't flat and that this universe is vast!

Perhaps a space was made somewhere within the infinite waters of Tehom, with a water-covered sphere in the middle. Thus Elohim separated the "waters above" from the "waters below". That space would then become our universe, while the water-covered sphere in the middle would later become planet Earth. But the edges of the vast cavity would be bounded from the waters above the sky by a sheet of metal, consistent with Biblical belief and even Greek mythology, where the sky god Uranus is said to personify a large, bronze dome covering the Earth. The large mass of such a bronze dome would have a massive gravitational pull, powerful enough to pull galaxies towards it—and that's exactly what we see with "Dark Flow"! But, if it were even as thick as a human, its large mass would make it collapse into a black hole. Therefore, there must be some force pushing out against it—probably the force that makes the universe expand? I don't know. The notion of an expanding universe is mentioned multiple times in the Old Testament, especially in Isaiah and Jeremiah's books: Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12 and 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1! But a "Big Bang" did not violently initiate this expansion to form the raqia; it would be too violent. Because Elohim had planned to put a sole planet in the center.

In his infamous ancient astronaut theories, Zecharia Sitchin attempts to reconcile the events of the second day with deep time with this hypothesis:
 * Earth was once a planet called Tiamat, entirely covered with water, that orbited the Sun ~2.4 AU away from it.
 * A rogue planet named Nibiru was captured by the Sun.
 * Nibiru and its moons collided with Tiamat.
 * One half of Tiamat was smashed into pieces, forming the asteroid belt (the raqia of Genesis).
 * The other half of Tiamat was sent into a closer orbit around the Sun, forming the current Earth. The waters of Tiamat covered over the scar, exposing dry land on the other side.

433 Eros possibly being layered provides evidence that the asteroid belt and Earth originated as parts of the same body.

Sitchin identifies both Elohim with the Babylonian god Marduk and his rogue planet Nibiru. What sacrilege! (Jeremiah 50:2: Her god Marduk has been shattered!) Because Elohim is God Almighty and not a rogue planet, a rogue planet is not needed. Therefore, I believe that when Elohim separated the "waters above" from the proto-Earth (Tiamat), he made Tiamat explode. No rogue planet involved. Parts of Tiamat were scattered into an asteroid belt which originally orbited around the Earth, before being transferred into its current-day orbit around the Sun upon the Sun's creation on Day 4. Earth, the largest fragment of Tiamat, retained most of Tiamat's original water and gained an atmosphere (perhaps from the explosion), giving the impression of a blue sky on its surface due to light scattering. Hence, the asteroid belt is also a raqia and was NOT created on the fourth day unlike the other celestial bodies.

But how can there be two firmaments or skies, as the firmament we previously discussed (raqia) is the hypothetical brazen edge of the universe? Well, the Bible implies that there is more than one heaven—three, to be exact! (Genesis 28:12, Deuteronomy 10:14, 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4) Even pagan mythologies say the same thing! The three heavens are often interpreted to be the Earth's atmosphere, interstellar space, and Elohim's Dwelling. But, consistent with discoveries that Earth's atmosphere extends past the Moon and a little over 600,000 km away, and with the theories I have proposed here, it can be seen that the three heavens are:
 * 1) The first heaven = Earth's atmosphere and the inner Solar System up to the asteroid belt
 * 2) Raqia (firmament) of the first heaven = the asteroid belt
 * 3) The second heaven = Interstellar and interplanetary space beyond the asteroid belt, up to the brazen edge of the universe
 * 4) Raqia (firmament) of the second heaven = the brazen edge of the universe
 * 5) The third heaven = Elohim's Dwelling and Kingdom

The asteroid belt, as a raqia, is also represented by Uranus in Hesiod's Theogony; his parthenogenous birth from Gaia (Tiamat, the watery proto-earth) reflects the asteroid belt's origin from the proto-earth's explosion. From Sitchin's translation of Theogony: And Gaia then bore starry Ouranos/—equal to herself—/to envelop her on every side,/to be an everlasting abode place for the gods.

We will ignore the Kuiper Belt and extraterrestrial water; it's too complicated to explain why!

So now we can conclude on what exactly God made on the second day: he first separated waters in the ocean of Tehom to create a cavity (our universe). To prevent the waters of Tehom from filling up the cavity, he encased it within a bronze firmament. At the center of the cavity was a rock-based super-Earth planet completely covered by water (Tiamat). Then Elohim supernaturally made Tiamat explode; some fragments formed the asteroid belt, while the largest fragment became Earth, still covered completely with water and having an atmosphere. The asteroid belt originally orbited Earth.

Praise Elohim that we were able to harmonize Sitchin's theories with young-Earth, Biblical literalist creationism!

Day 3: 25 October, 4004 BCE
''Then Elohim commanded, “Let the water below the sky come together in one place, so that the land will appear”—and it was done. He named the land “Earth,” and the water which had come together he named “Sea.” And Elohim was pleased with what he saw. Then he commanded, “Let the earth produce all kinds of plants, those that bear grain and those that bear fruit”—and it was done. So the earth produced all kinds of plants, and Elohim was pleased with what he saw. Evening passed and morning came—that was the third day.'' (Genesis 1:9-13) When Yahweh Elohim made the universe, there were no plants on the earth and no seeds had sprouted, because he had not sent any rain, and there was no one to cultivate the land;  but water would come up from beneath the surface and water the ground. (Genesis 2:4b-6)

Note how God says "Let the water below the sky come together in one place." This implies that there was originally one ocean. However, we currently have five (the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Southern, and Arctic Oceans). And they are separated from each other by landmasses. So for all the water to be in one place, then that means that there would be only one continent, surrounded by a vast, singular ocean!

And what does this supposition sound an awful lot like? Pangaea and Panthalassa.

Pangaea and Panthalassa were created by God 6,000 years ago, not 250 million years ago! Later, on the barren surface of Pangaea, would he create vegetation and plants. On one side of the newly-formed Earth was all the barren, dry land, the supercontinent of Pangaea. On the other side was all the seas, the ocean of Panthalassa.

What is incredible is that this even fits with the most popular origin tale of Greek mythology—the Theogony of Hesiod! On one side, Gaia "brought forth long hills, graceful haunts of the goddess-Nymphs"; "she bare Pontus, the fruitless deep with its raging swell", on the other (Pontus is a god personifying the sea itself; Sanchuniathon links him to the Canaanite sea monster Yam ). Just imagine how accurate and widely-known God's Word is!

But then comes the obstacle of scientifically explaining the transformation from an entirely ocean planet to a planet with a dry continent on one side. The Bible offers some hints: You have set the earth firmly on its foundations, and it will never be moved. You placed the ocean over it like a robe, and the water covered the mountains. When you rebuked the waters, they fled; they rushed away when they heard your shout of command. They flowed over the mountains and into the valleys, to the place you had made for them. You set a boundary they can never pass, to keep them from covering the earth again. (Psalm 104:5-9)

Basically, the waters that once covered the planet entirely flowed into a hole that contained them, which presumably still does to this day, allowing dry land to be exposed. Sitchin's theory on the ocean waters flowing into the gap where the current Earth broke off Tiamat is a very good attempt to explain this, but there is another possibility that involves another theory, rejected in mainstream science but accepted by some fringe scientists and creationists: the Expanding Earth theory!

The Expanding Earth theory states that the movement, distribution, and relative position of landmasses on the Earth's surface is partially due to its volume increasing. There are multiple evidences to support this.

In the Expanding Earth models, the Pacific Ocean is closed. Asia (or Australia) and North America are clearly in contact with each other, and they clearly fit. So if the coastlines of Africa and the Americas matching is taken as evidence for plate tectonics on a constant-sized globe, then how come scientists are not convinced by the coastlines of Asia and the Americas matching? Therefore, the expanding Earth theory must have some degree of truth to it.

The Earth, prior to expansion, would only have a diameter comparable to that of Mars. Due to the lack of oceanic crust, the oceans would have covered the planet's surface. Doesn't this fit with what we have so far—a proto-Earth that was once completely covered with oceans? Indeed it does!

Basically, when what would become our planet exploded away from Tiamat on Day 2, it carried lots of Tiamat's original water along with it. This fragment—the largest fragment of the explosion—re-entered hydrostatic equilibrium and was completely covered with oceans. Its diameter was comparable to that of Mars (which is a more suitable fragment size than the diameter of today's Earth (12,742 km), giving Tiamat a diameter of ~18,000 km). However, being made of mostly material from Tiamat's core and mantle, it was highly pressurized. Entering the cold vacuum of space made it depressurize—the fragmentary planet expanded to a diameter of roughly 12,500 kilometers. When the Earth expanded, there was a mighty tear in its surface; the crust within this tear would be less than 10 km thick. As hinted in Psalm 104:5-9, the oceans that once covered Earth drained into this tear, forming the vast ocean of Panthalassa—the "one place" (Genesis 1:9) that the waters below the raqia flowed into. The coastlines of Asia, Australia, and the Americas represent the edges of this tear, and, of course, Pangaea's coastlines.

Note that Asia, Australia, and the Americas separated first. Pangaea was still there—the Atlantic and Indian Oceans were still closed. We will get on to why later. But there was the Tethys Ocean, which we'll also get to later. It is believed that Earth still expands today, but at a very small rate. I suspect that this is because the Earth's expansion rate follows a graph of the equation y = k$$\sqrt{x}$$ which means that Earth expanded rapidly at first (from ~7,000 km to 12,500 km in one day) but its expansion rate has decreased exponentially ever since (e.g. 12,500 km to 12,742 km in 6,000 years).

But we also have lots of evidence for plate tectonics (especially subduction), right? Indeed, we do. But that's not a problem. J. Marvin Herndon and Andrew D. Mackay both have "unified theories" of plate tectonics and Expanding Earth suited for deep time, so I don't think a theory uniting what superficially seems to be two conflicting ideas would be unsuitable for young-Earth creationism, given the evidences we are presented.

In most Expanding Earth models, liquid magma from the mantle comes into contact with the water above, causing it to cool and form the thinner, denser, and iron-rich oceanic crust. (The primordial crust, now continental crust, didn't stretch—the continental crust is rhyolitic and has far different properties than oceanic crust.) In plate tectonics, the crust is cracked into various major pieces, termed tectonic plates. These move due to (very slow) convection currents in the (very viscous) mantle. We know that Australia is moving north by a few centimeters each year; this contradicts most Expanding Earth models that have Australia moving south! This means that plate tectonics, with a Pangaea envisioned in mainstream science, is true. The Earth's crust is cracked into pieces that move in certain directions.

Uniting this with what we have so far, I believe that when Earth expanded on Day 3, only eastern Asia, Australia, and the Americas separated from each other, leaving Panthalassa as the only ocean and Pangaea as the only continent. Other than around Pangaea (Pangaea and Panthalassa had two different kinds of crust), the crust was not fragmented into pieces, hence convection currents in the mantle could not break Pangaea apart, Pangaea lay on only one tectonic plate, and there were no earthquakes, volcanoes, or tsunamis in this world not yet tainted with sin. A worldwide disaster mentioned later in Genesis which we'll later discuss caused the breaking up of Pangaea and the Earth's crust into individual continents and moving tectonic plates respectively.

The Tethys Ocean: The Stream that Watered the Garden of Eden
''Then Yahweh Elohim planted a garden in Eden, in the East, and there he put the man he had formed. He made all kinds of beautiful trees grow there and produce good fruit. In the middle of the garden stood the tree that gives life and the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. A stream flowed in Eden and watered the garden; beyond Eden it divided into four rivers. The first river is the Pishon; it flows around the country of Havilah. (Pure gold is found there and also rare perfume and precious stones.) The second river is the Gihon; it flows around the country of Cush. The third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria, and the fourth river is the Euphrates.'' (Genesis 2:8-14)

In mainstream models of Pangaea, southern Asia (including modern-day Israel and Mesopotamia), Africa, and southern Europe are separated from northern Europe and Asia, separated by the wide Tethys Ocean. Southern Asia, Africa, and southern Europe colliding with northern Asia and Europe supposedly formed the Pyrenees, Alps, Caucasus mountains, Zagros mountains, and Himalayas.

[incomplete]

However, the Garden of Eden itself was created not on Day 3, but on Day 6, as we will discuss further down.

Day 4: 26 October, 4004 BCE
''Then God commanded, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate day from night and to show the time when days, years, and religious festivals begin; they will shine in the sky to give light to the earth”—and it was done. So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars. He placed the lights in the sky to shine on the earth, to rule over the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God was pleased with what he saw. Evening passed and morning came—that was the fourth day.'' (Genesis 1:14-19)

This phrase is mostly obvious: God created the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars on this day.

As discussed for what happened on Day 2, the asteroid belt was not created on this day—it was created on Day 2 as a firmament of one of the various heavens. But when the Sun has been created, the asteroid belt was perturbed by the Sun's large gravitational pull and began to orbit it instead, between Mars and Jupiter, two of the planets that God made on that day.

It's possible that the celestial bodies were originally created as nebular material, which, like in the nebular hypothesis, collapsed into their current-day form but within the timespan of a few hours to a day.

Evidence for celestial bodies being young
Lunar evidence:
 * There is evidence that the Moon is shrinking and that it is undergoing recent volcanic and tectonic activity.
 * Tidal friction causes the Moon to slowly recede away from the Earth at a rate of 4 cm added to its orbital radius per year. It would have been greater when they were closer in the past. This implies that the Moon would be at the Earth's Roche limit at 1 billion years after formation (where it would fragment into pieces due to tidal forces).
 * Earth is slowing down in rotation, adding 0.002 seconds per day every 100 years. This implies that a day a few billion years ago would have been insanely short.
 * It is believed that lava flows caused by impacts covered smaller craters in larger ones, but the time between an impact forming the smaller craters and the impact which produced the larger ones that made the subsequent magma flows would have to be small, or else the resultant lava would have solidified.
 * Interstellar and interplanetary dust should have accumulated to a very high, quicksand-like layer on the Moon's surface over billions of years. Yet all the Lunar mission probes did not sink into the Lunar surface, despite concerns that they would.

Planetary evidence:
 * Mercury is relatively small (diameter of 4,879 km) that its interior would have solidified quickly, causing its magnetic field to shut down. Yet Mercury has a magnetic field of significant strength.
 * Jupiter's Galilean Moons (save Io) have significant magnetic fields despite having solid cores (save Ganymede).
 * Were Io 4.5 billion years old (as mainstream planetologists say) and erupting at even only 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Gravitational perturbations from Jupiter and its other moons cannot account for most of its excess heat.
 * Jupiter's moon Europa has many craters. Studies show that most (95%) of the small to medium-sized ones were actually formed by debris thrown into space by previous impacts. Thus the amount of impactors on Europa would be less than a universal age of billions of years implies.
 * Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the Sun, indicating a recent collapse from gaseous form into their present-day form.
 * Titan, Saturn's largest moon, famously has a methane atmosphere. Despite Saturn's larger distance from the Sun, all of Titan's methane should have decayed into smaller compounds by now due to UV-induced breakdown. This should have produced a sea of ethane on Titan up to 600 meters thick. Yet it was not found by Huygens. Titan's surface being dry means that it has only been around for thousands of years, not millions, let alone billions.
 * Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, is geologically active. Calculations show that its core would have frozen completely after only 30 million years; less than 1% of the age mainstream science gives it, "shutting down" any geological activity (as the Sun's heat is too miniscule for a significant at its far-off distance and Enceladus is very small).
 * Miranda, a small moon of Uranus, should have its surface features (such as the 20 km-high Verona Rupes) completely eroded were it billions of years old due to interactions with micrometeorites and particles in the Uranian ring system.
 * Neptune's rings have "thick" and "thin" regions which would have evened out over billions of years.
 * Triton, Neptune's largest moon, has a young surface of less than 10 million years old, even if deep-time assumptions are taken into account.
 * Uranus and Neptune both have magnetic fields that are significantly off-axis, which is unstable. Why do they both have this problem? Thus, they can't be billions of years old.
 * Uranus and Neptune's magnetic fields should be "dead" according to their supposed ages, yet their magnetic fields still function normally.
 * Planet Nine is a hypothetical ice giant whose possible existance is derived from the orbits of certain trans-Neptunian objects and their orbital behaviors over millions and billions of years. Yet it hasn't been found yet, despite our technology being able to find it.
 * This also rules out the possibility that Nibiru is Biblical and a factor in Biblical eschatology.

Asteroidal evidence:
 * The maximum expected lifetime for near-Earth asteroids is of the order of a million years, after which they spiral down into the Sun. The Yarkovsky effect brings main belt asteroids into near-Earth orbits faster than expected. Thus the asteroid belt and solar system are likely young.
 * Binary asteroids make up almost 20% of objects in the asteroid belt. Tidal effects limit their lifetimes to only around 100,000 years. When they were first theorized, many astronomers refused to believe in their existance due to how hard it was for them, in large numbers, to form and remain stable. Yet we know many (243 Ida being perhaps the most famous example).

Cometary evidence:
 * Short-period comets (orbital periods of less than 200 years) like Halley's Comet have approximate "lifespans" of less than 20,000 years. ad hoc hypotheses have been invented to circumvent this evidence, such as Oort's cloud and Tyche, the latter of which was ruled out by the WISE telescope in 2014.
 * Same as above, but with long-period comets (orbital periods of more than 200 years). 90% of Oort's cloud has been said to come from other stars and have been captured by the Sun, but 6,000 years is too little time for a star to come significantly close to the Sun. Yet no other stars have structures similar to Oort's cloud (CW Leonis was once thought to but no longer). It is said that such structures would reach more than halfway to the nearest star, so ideally, we could find one around nearby Alpha Centauri. Yet, we can't even find planets around Alpha Centauri B (Alpha Centauri B b, a potential planet in orbit around Alpha Centauri B which I remember hearing the news of when I was 8, was disproven).
 * An object orbiting the Sun as far away as Oort's cloud (not including comets due to their extreme orbital eccentricity and perihelions) with low orbital eccentricity has not yet been discovered.
 * Pluto's moon Charon has crystalline water ice and ammonia hydrate which cannot be older than 10 million years.

Stellar evidence:
 * The faint young Sun paradox (Google it).
 * British astronomers have found that the Sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 feet per hour. 20 million years ago, it would be as large as Earth's orbit. This could be due to the Sun losing mass to the interplanetary medium.

Galactic evidence:
 * Many dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are moving away from each other at speeds between 10 to 12 kilometers per second. At this speed, the stars would have dispersed in 100 million years.
 * There are extremely young spiral galaxies, and the ageing of spiral galaxies (many of which are less than 200 million years) contradicts their supposed ages.
 * The number of type I supernova remnants observed in the Milky Way is consistent with an age of only thousands of years, not billions of years.
 * The size and expansion rate of supernova remnants indicates that all the ones we've studied are less than 10,000 years old.

Cosmological evidence:
 * A 2019 study found that the universe might be 2 billion years younger than previously thought.
 * The big bang theory doesn't even make any sense; if empty space did not exist before the big bang and is a byproduct of it, then what did the universe expand into? And if the universe is supposedly infinite, then how would a universe expanding continually out of nothing be possible? The universe would be finite.

Source: Batten, D. (2009), "101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe". Creation Ministries International. Retrieved 25 April 2021, from http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth#20110326.

Evidence for rapid stellar evolution
Evolutionists and atheists say that the evolution of stars takes millions of years. They even say that red dwarf stars can live for up to 20 trillion years. But we know that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Therefore, how can stellar evolution work? Some creationists don't believe in stellar evolution because it contradicts God having finished his creation on the seventh day of his making (Genesis 2:1-3).

What if I tell you that stellar evolution only takes a few thousand years, not millions of years?

For example, look at Betelgeuse, the red supergiant star in Orion. Ptolemy (150 CE) described Betelgeuse as red, however, three centuries earlier, Chinese astronomers noted Betelgeuse as being the standard yellow star, while the similar Antares as the standard red star. This implies that Betelgeuse was a yellow supergiant at the time, a yellow supergiant being an intermediate stage between blue supergiants and red supergiants. Based on research into their complex circumstellar environment, this is very possible (Levesque, 2010).

Now we'll go south to Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky. We currently know it is a blue-white A-type main sequence star. We also know it has a white dwarf companion (Sirius B). However, like Betelgeuse, Ptolemy described Sirius as red, alongside Betelgeuse (red), Antares (red), Aldebaran (red), Arcturus (red-orange), and Pollux (orange). Seneca (c. CE 25) even referred to Sirius as redder than Mars! (Whittet, D. C. B. 1999; he even says there: "An intrinsic explanation [i.e. red giant to white dwarf] of the red Sirius anomaly, if proven to be correct, would severely challenge existing theories of stellar evolution".) German astronomers Wolfhard Schlosser and Werner Bergmann suggested that this was because Sirius B had been a red giant (1985). Yet, this explanation has been discarded, mostly because stellar evolutionary theories dictate a longer period for Sirius B's transformation from a red giant to a white dwarf.

A timeline of Sirius observations and assigned colors:
 * Ancient China: White (Xiao-Yuan Juang, 1993)
 * White (200 BC-700 CE)
 * Sima Qian: White (100 BC)
 * Seneca: Red (25 CE)
 * Ptolemy: Red (150 CE)
 * Present-day: White

In a young universe, where stellar evolution needs only a few thousand years (i.e. their evolutionary spans are compressed), it's possible for Sirius B to turn from a red giant to a white dwarf in only a few years or decades.

Is it possible that, for many centuries in history, people were documenting a star die before their very eyes? Sirius B may have very well been a red giant when Jesus walked on the earth and became a white dwarf some 500 years later. I know that the widely-accepted explanation for Sirius's reported red hue is due to atmospheric extinction, but, really? Mars is really deep red, and Sirius would just appear to have a red exterior but a whitish exterior were that explanation reasonable.

I know that is meant to produce a planetary nebula, and yet we can't see a planetary nebula. So if Sirius B was a red giant, where did its outer layers go? Maybe the answer lies within Sirius. Sirius A is classified as an Am star because it has deep metallic absorption lines; i.e. its outer layers are richer in metals (in astronomy: not hydrogen, helium, or their isotopes). Metals are produced by stars and their death results in the metals being dispersed to the universe. Thus, I believe that most of the outer layers of Sirius B's red giant phase where captured by Sirius A and absorbed by it, so no spectacular planetary nebula was produced.

According to Whittet (1999), Sirius B's dimensions are consistent with it having a core of one solar mass. Thus, mass may have flowed from Sirius B to Sirius A (Joss et al. 1987). While it is currently the best explanation on why there is no surrounding nebula and why Sirius A is rich in metals, Sirius A's current mass suggests against this. However, mass transfer may very well shorten the period needed for a red giant to become a white dwarf. Despite Sirius A's low mass, this seems to be the best explanation. Perhaps El didn't let Sirius B shew forth a planetary nebula; it might have endangered life on Earth, 8.6 light years away. Glory And Praise To El!

Then we have Sakurai's object in Sagittarius. In 1994, it was a white dwarf in a planetary nebula. Three years later, it was a modestly-sized yellow giant (Astronomy & Astrophysics 321:L17, 1997) The next year, it was a red supergiant nearly 200 times wider than the Sun! But 4 years later, in 2002, it quickly shrunk to the point where it was invisible, even to the most powerful telescopes (Muir, H., 2003, Back from the dead, New Scientist 177(2384):28–31).

Last of all, let's talk about our own star, the Sun: ''Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to burn people with its fiery heat. They were burned by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God, who has authority over these plagues. But they would not turn from their sins and praise his greatness.'' (Revelation 16:8-9)

Is it possible that this is a foreshadowing of the mainstream scientific theory of our Sun leaving the main sequence and becoming a red giant? The scientists say we have 5 to 7 billion years left. But this will happen within 7 years of Jesus coming back to Earth, which we don't know when will it occur (Matthew 24:36). But one thing we do know: Jesus is coming back very soon. Probably within the next million years. Thus, our Sun doesn't need 5 billion years to become a red giant.

The biggest question shouldn't be when it will happen, but: are you ready for His return?

But didn't God finish his creation on the seventh day? Yes, that's true. But mankind's sin corrupted creation and brought it into disorder. From that day onward, stars would die—like living creatures on Earth. Stellar evolution, a consequence of man's sin of literally astronomical proportions, began to take hold. And from the remains of dead stars, new stars and planets would form, against God's plan that creation should have ended 6,000 years ago. The Orion Nebula, where stars are being born, was made by stars in demolition.

We know for sure that we have seen planets and stars forming.

We can conclude that stellar evolution, in a young universe, needs only a few thousand years to roll, not millions or billions of years as the evolutionists say.

Day 5: 27 October, 4004 BCE
''Then Elohim commanded, “Let the water be filled with many kinds of living beings, and let the air be filled with birds.” So Elohim created the great sea monsters, all kinds of creatures that live in the water, and all kinds of birds. And Elohim was pleased with what he saw. He blessed them all and told the creatures that live in the water to reproduce and to fill the sea, and he told the birds to increase in number. Evening passed and morning came—that was the fifth day.'' (Genesis 1:20-23)

It's pretty obvious what happened on this day—God created all the marine and aquatic creatures, followed by the birds. Extinct marine creatures like trilobites and the megalodon included.

Day 6: 28 October, 4004 BCE
'' Then Elohim commanded, “Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small”—and it was done. So Elohim made them all, and he was pleased with what he saw. Then Elohim said, “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals, domestic and wild, large and small.” So Elohim created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female, blessed them, and said, “Have many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth and bring it under their control. I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals. I have provided all kinds of grain and all kinds of fruit for you to eat; but for all the wild animals and for all the birds I have provided grass and leafy plants for food”—and it was done. Elohim looked at everything he had made, and he was very pleased. Evening passed and morning came—that was the sixth day.'' (Genesis 1:24-31)

''Then Yahweh Elohim took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live. Then Yahweh Elohim planted a garden in Eden, in the East, and there he put the man he had formed. He made all kinds of beautiful trees grow there and produce good fruit. In the middle of the garden stood the tree that gives life and the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad.'' (Genesis 2:7-9)

Also obvious; God created all the land animals (including currently-extinct ones like the dinosaurs), including the first human—Adam. After Adam's creation the Garden of Eden is spontaneously grown (on the 6th day, not on the 3rd). Adam is made after the animals in this narrative. However, one can point out a certain detail in a more detailed narrative in Genesis 2:

''Then Yahweh Elohim placed the man in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and guard it. He told him, “You may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden, except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day.” Then Yahweh Elohim said, “It is not good for the man to live alone. I will make a suitable companion to help him.” So he took some soil from the ground and formed all the animals and all the birds. Then he brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and that is how they all got their names. So the man named all the birds and all the animals; but not one of them was a suitable companion to help him. Then Yahweh Elohim made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him. Then the man said,'' “At last, here is one of my own kind— Bone taken from my bone, and flesh from my flesh. ‘Woman’ is her name because she was taken out of man.” ''That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united with his wife, and they become one. The man and the woman were both naked, but they were not embarrassed.'' (Genesis 2:15-25)

In here it is stated that Adam was made before the animals! There seems to be a contradiction.

Genesis 2:8-9 explicitly talks about the Garden of Eden rather than plants in general. There are two possibilities:
 * 1) The fruit trees in the Garden of Eden could have been grown on that day independently from the rest of the plants of Day 3 and are separate species from them.
 * 2) The fruit trees in Eden are the same species as the plants that were created on Day 3, hence, they were not created on Day 6.

As God rested from his creation and called it "perfect" on Day 7 (Genesis 2:1-3); this implies that Eve was made on the same day as Adam (Day 6), and in turn the same day as that of the animals. Note how the animals, in Genesis 2, are made between the sequence of Yahweh making Adam and then Eve, rather than before Adam in Genesis 1. However, since this all takes place within Day 6, it means that Yahweh simply made more land animals (either new species or individual animals within the same species; the latter is the more likely possibility) after Adam's creation. Thus we can reconcile the two chapters in the following sequence:


 * 1) Land animals (Genesis 1:24-25)
 * 2) Adam (Genesis 1:26-31, 2:7)
 * 3) Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:8-9)
 * 4) More land animals (likely individual animals of the same species) (Genesis 2:19)
 * 5) Eve (Genesis 2:21-22)
 * 6) Elohim's rest (Day 7; Genesis 2:1-3)

I hope this clears up any doubts for you.

Day 7: 29 October, 4004 BCE
''And so the whole universe was completed. By the seventh day Elohim finished what he had been doing and stopped working. He blessed the seventh day and set it apart as a special day, because by that day He had completed His creation and stopped working.'' (Genesis 2:1-3)

Obvious: God finished His beautiful masterpiece and stopped working. He rested, and, in doing so, initiated Shabbat. God finishing all his creations on this day echoes the First Law of Thermodynamics (or the Law of Conservation of Energy and Mass): matter and energy cannot be created and destroyed, because God finished making them all on the 6th Day of Creation.

El made a beautiful masterpiece, but, unfortunately, one day it was completely ruined...

The Sambation River
The Sambation is not in the Bible; it originates in folklore. Yet, it may still hold some significance.