Young solar system evidence
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
The theory of a young solar system has many scientific arguments that can be used to show consistency with the belief in a recent creation. Some arguments put forward in support of a recent creation simply put an upper limit on the age of the Earth, solar system, or universe, which are inconsistent with an ancient creation. For example, Russell Humphreys' argument based on the amount of salt in the ocean is designed to show the maximum possible age of the oceans based on uniformitarian assumptions, and thus shows that the oceans could not be as old as claimed; it is not designed to show the actual age of the oceans, and as such the resulting age, although far too great for the young Earth view, is not inconsistent with it.
Contents |
Helioseismology
- Main Article: Helioseismology
Helioseismology - The core of the sun produces deuterium from hydrogen fusion at 5 million degrees K. The heat is transferred from the core by convection currents so it could reach surface in days, not a million years. It also leads to an age for the sun based on the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of the local interstellar medium of 6,000-12,857 years.
Comets
- Main Article: Comet
For years creationists have indicated that there are too many bright, low-period comets to support an old solar system. The idea given is that a comet gets burned by the sun, and hence the shorter the period the fewer passes a comet can withstand before dying. As there is no observed mechanism for replacing dead comets, the solar system should have already run out of comets.
Scientists, in response to this known problems, have hypothesized first an Oort cloud and then a Kuiper belt, where comets are supposed to exist and occasionally fall into our solar system. While neither of these have been found, they have also not been disproven.
Interplanetary Dust
Creationists have indicated that there is too much interplanetary dust in the solar system. The solar wind, solar gravitation and the Poynting-Robertson effect remove dust from the solar system, while comets and asteroids can contribute to the dust. An argument was issued by Robertson and Slusher in a 100 page monograph confirming that equations derived nearly fifty years earlier were essentially correct and the solar system was limited to a few thousand years without some hitherto unknown massive replacement method. At least half of this conclusion is supported by secular scientists who hold that the lifespan for a typical dust particle is about 10,000 years.
Mainstream scientists have not suggested other major sources of dust, and so one must assume they consider the dust created by meteors and comets sufficient.
A related, but qualitatively different, argument based on flux of particles (not their lifetime) has been largely abandoned by creation scientists[1].
Magnetic Field Decay
- Main Article: Geomagnetic field decay
Creationists have suggested that the decay in the Earth's magnetic field is a sign that the solar system cannot be old. They claim that it is lessening too rapidly. Secular scientists have hypothesized that the field reverses itself every certain number of years or else it has freely decayed from a higher value. The latter theory is considered untenable (by scientists on both sides) due both to the extreme effect ultra high fields in the past would have had on life and to the archaeological evidence that the field has apparently changed polarity. A great deal of speculation has ensued on both sides, as it is unclear how often the field reverses and by what mechanism. Russell Humphreys has developed a magnetic field based on creationist underpinnings, published predictions for the magnetic fields of Neptune and Uranus prior to Voyager measuring the fields. He claims his predictions were validated and suggests that uniformitarian predictions were not. This article gives some information as well as some criticism (though it is on a creationist website, so should not be considered neutral). This article is from a more hostile source, but it appears to have partially misread Humphrey's argument.
Distance to Moon
- Main Article: Moon Recession
Both creation and secular scientists have indicated that there is a problem with the distance the moon is from the Earth. In particular, its rate of departure seems high. This was noted by Kerr in a 1983 article for Science magazine. Donald DeYoung extrapolated plots in 1990. When new data was found using putatively old varves, DeYoung's extrapolation was supported. The problem is that this appears to put the Moon in contact with the earth only 1.5 billion years ago. An article critical of this approach, suggesting that it does not take dissipation and deformation appropriately into consideration can be found here.
Lunar Surface Ghost Craters
Numerous Ghost Craters on the moon suggest an inexplicably long time between the moons initial cooling and a later lava overflow. Creationists, such as Danny Faulkner, also object to the standard timeline for lunar evolution because they claim these ghost craters should be more plainly visible. This is discussed in brief at True Origin and in more detail in Faulkner's paper.
References
 Browse |
