Modern Physics – Creation Perspective

Posted on Oct 15, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Creation Answer: Physics (and math) have been discovered, not evolved. Naturalism can’t explain why physics and math are the way they are. Some naturalists don’t see this as a problem, because the fact that these mathematical and physical laws and principles exist is proof that they had to have formed to make the universe. “It’s perfect just because it is” isn’t a satisfactory answer. Naturalism doesn’t have an answer for how or why the laws of physics exist. “Quantum mechanics [QM] really works, and has been strongly supported by experiment. The history and practice of QM shows no hidden motivation to attack a biblical world view, in contrast to uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology.”[i] Naturalists believe that the use of modern physics does, and will, give further evidence that there is no God and that they don’t need God. But from a creationist perspective, modern physics does, and will, continue to show the complexity of life and the universe , attesting to the fact that there is a supreme creator, an intelligence behind it all. Humankind will never catch up to the information hidden and evident within existence and that is a testimony to God’s wonderful omniscience. God has planned all of these things out, because He is all-knowing and all-powerful. In response to Stephen Hawking’s conclusion that there is no need for a creator, he places his faith in the idea that because of quantum mechanics, particles can “pop” into existence out of nothing. “So is it possible that the universe just popped into existence out of the vacuum through nothing more than a quantum fluctuation? Some people think so, although they seem to conveniently forget that the laws of quantum physics would have had to already be in existence, so one could not say that the universe created itself ‘out of nothing’. Others have pointed out, however, that the lifetime of quantum events is inversely proportional to the mass of the object and this precludes any such cosmological quantum event. If a universe did pop into existence by quantum fluctuation, nobody would notice—the lifetime of a quantum event the size of our universe would be less than 10-103 seconds. Moreover, virtual particles today appear within the vacuum of space. In the primordial singularity there was no space and so no vacuum.”[ii] Hawking also assumes that God has to act within time to create the universe. Hawking’s definition of God is flawed, in that, God is actually timeless and spaceless, not being limited by those constraints. Hawking and Naturalism still can’t explain the origin of the law of causality, the laws of physics, as well as numerous other laws and concepts. “This inability to provide a cogent replacement for God as the source of scientific law is hardly surprising. Once you dismiss the concept of a Creator God who is not only a living supernatural being, but one who is...

Read More

Modern Physics – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Posted on Oct 14, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Introduction: Modern Physics is the extension of previous levels of physics and is therefore the study of the fundamental and “weird” interactions that occur in our universe. Sir Isaac Newton really founded the study of physics by his understanding of gravity and forces (now called Newtonian or Classical Physics) and since then, modern physics has taken our understanding to a whole new level. Quantum Mechanics was developed based on the research of atoms and subatomic particles. Quantum Mechanics gets its name from the discovery that energy within atoms is quantized, meaning that the smallest amounts of energy come in small packets or quanta (like integers – only 1, 2, 3, etc), rather than any variable amount of energy (like 2.63 or 5.41 or anywhere in between). Initial research was based on blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the atomic nature of elements. There are now “several classes of phenomena called ‘quantum effects.’” Some of the conclusions from the new physics can breach on the weird and paradoxical, as we shall see. In Quantum Mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that at any given time, you simply cannot know both the position and velocity of an electron. You can know only one, or the other, at any given time and therefore you will not be able to tell where it will be later. The Wave-Particle Duality says that light and electrons act as both a wave and a particle, which seems contradictory and very mysterious. Because particles can have wave properties, quantum tunneling (a particle can instantaneously jump across a solid barrier) is thought to be possible. This phenomenon is theorized to be part of brain activity.[i] Quantum Entanglement is possible in that two or more particles can be in the same quantum state and then, even when separated by a great distance, when one of the particles is acted on, the other(s) is simultaneously affected. Because of Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Teleportation may be possible by acting on one of the entangled particles, which will then cause a reaction of the other entangled particle and thus we may be able to send information, or particles, with potentially “faster than light communication methods.” This means that you could change something locally and instantly affect the universe some distance away without any time needed for the information to travel that distance.[ii] Two quantum effects are observable on the macroscopic scale with superconductors and superfluids. Superconductors can be created, at the right temperature, to cause the material to have no electrical resistance and therefore able to magnetically levitate. Also, if again we are at the right temperature, superfluids will have no viscosity.[iii] If none of that seems weird to you yet, consider the most common interpretation of quantum mechanics… the Copenhagen Interpretation.  This interpretation suggests that particles exist in all of the possible quantum states, but when the particle is observed, then the quantum wave function collapses, meaning that you only end...

Read More

Strong Magnetic Fields – Creation Perspective

Posted on Oct 3, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Creation Answer: According to the National Geomagnetic Initiative, “the mechanism for generating the geomagnetic field remains one of the central unresolved problems in geosciences.”[i] “Magnetism is almost as much of a puzzle now as it was when William Gilbert (1544-1603) wrote his classic text, ‘Concerning Magnetism, Magnetic Bodies, and the Great Magnet, Earth’ in 1600.”[ii] “What a planet needs in order to produce a strong magnetic field is (1) a liquid conducting (metallic) interior and (2) rapid rotation to get the conducting material moving about.”[iii] The magnetic field is based on the amount of the liquid swirling within the earth. The faster the moving currents, the stronger the magnetic field would be. “If the liquid interior becomes solid or if the rotation slows down, the magnetic field will weaken.”[iv] Over time, the earth, like most things, has been cooling and its rotation slowing so the magnetic field is expected to weaken. Naturalism needs a way for magnetic fields to continually recharge, and this they call the Dynamo effect. “Currents create a magnetic field–a distribution of magnetic forces–and the essence of the self-sustaining dynamo problem is to find solutions such that the resulting magnetic field is also the input field required for generating the current in the first place…Actually, that is only the lowest level of the problem, in which one is free to prescribe the motions. To solve the full problem, we also need information about the heat sources, and these sources must be able to drive motions which also solve the dynamo problem.”[v] “Scientists are still not sure about what provides the heat in the Earth’s core. It might come from some of the iron becoming solid and joining the inner core, or perhaps it is generated by radioactivity, like the heat of the Earth’s crust.” [vi] “Such problems are not easy. They involve intricate mathematics and are not yet fully solved.” [vii] “Evolutionary dynamo theories do not have a good explanation for the rapid decay of the field.”[viii] The Earth’s magnetic field must have been much stronger in the past, and in fact it has weakened, at a minimum, of about 7% since the first recordings in 1827. By knowing the intensity, one can calculate the amount of electrical energy as well. Based on the Dynamic Decay theory, which is a creation model of the magnetic fields, the intensity and energy are both noticeably going down and it fits with both a young earth and global flood model.[ix] “Archaeomagnetism” is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists…the data show that the field intensity at the earth’s surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ. A final fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a peak (50% higher than today) at about the time of Christ. Then it began a slowly accelerating decrease. By about...

Read More

Strong Magnetic Fields – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Posted on Oct 1, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 1 comment

Introduction: The earth and many other planets, and even the sun, currently retain very strong magnetic fields. Over time those magnetic fields should have weakened. Is there a phenomenon that can recharge dying magnetic fields? How are these magnetic fields formed? Are magnetic fields formed naturally or designed by God for our protection? How do the magnetic fields really affect earth? What does the evidence tell us about the age of the earth and the universe?   Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer: The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and its magnetic field is due to the movement of charged metals within the earth’s liquid outer core. This moving of charged metals will always form a magnetic field around them naturally. The earth formed with swirling currents of hot, molten rock, which simultaneously created magnetic fields associated with the swirling mass. So the earth has always had a strong magnetic field, and for that matter, magnetic fields have probably formed around most, if not all, other astronomical objects as well. The human body even has a slight magnetic field. The earth’s magnetic field has a positive impact on this planet as it shields harmful solar and celestial radiation from entering our atmosphere. Over earth’s history, the chaotic currents are like a “dynamo” inside the earth, which is always moving and causing the magnetic field to change constantly and these “magnetic fields morph and push and pull at one another.” From ocean sediment cores and surveys and the fossil record, magnetic fields are recorded in the rocks and specifically show that the poles even occasionally flip, making the north pole the south pole and then back again. This pole reversal happens “about every 200,000 to 300,000 years, although it has been more than twice that long since the last reversal.” “Scientists estimate reversals have happened at least hundreds of times over the past three billion years,” and each reversal may take a few thousand years. Fortunately, these pole reversals don’t appear to cause environmental problems or exposure to harmful radiation , since there still is a magnetic field, it is just changing.[i] The earth’s magnetic field has actually weakened by 10% since the 19th century, but University of California professor Gary Glatzmaier says that “the field is increasing or decreasing all the time.” “We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record.” He also explains that that 10% is a relatively small amount of change and that “Earth’s present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal…twice (as much as) the million-year average.”[ii]   by Brian Mariani and others   Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?   Before commenting, please read the following disclosures. Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are...

Read More

The Big Bang Theory – Creation Perspective

Posted on Sep 30, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Creation Answer: Naturalists say that the universe is billions of years old, based on current observations, but this is again based on their assumptions of the current data. Creationists say that current observations show that the universe could not be billions of years old and the Bible, God’s historical record, describes the creation account only several thousand years ago. There are many things that point to a young universe, such as: the existence of comets, magnetic field strengths, rotations and revolutions of planetary bodies (and many of their moons), and the compositions and structures of stars, planets and galaxies. The Big Bang Theory, attempting to describe the universe’s initial catastrophic event, is very complex, but still leaves a lot of questions that have to be answered. Mathematicians and Physicists are still trying to work out how (and why) the universe came from nothing, proceeded to be everything in an infinitesimally small point and then eventually expanded to what it is today. They have much to try to explain, but it still won’t be able to answer questions about the naturalistic processes of the universe before the Big Bang (much of the how and why). Just because a theory has a lot to still explain doesn’t mean that it isn’t true, but is their hypothesis the best explanation of the observations? Naturalists would say “yes,” because they will not accept any supernatural explanation and will therefore throw out all creation viewpoints. The Big Bang Theory has been plagued with many problems, including – missing magnetic monopoles, the flatness problem, missing Population III stars, and many, many more.[i] “With all the problems…it is not surprising that quite a few secular astronomers are beginning to abandon the big bang. Although it is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the big bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004, issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by secular scientists5 who challenge the big bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful big-bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state: ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.’”[ii] Scientists have also struggled with the problem of missing antimatter. “Physical laws indicate that equal amounts of matter and antimatter would have been created in...

Read More

The Big Bang Theory – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Posted on Sep 26, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Introduction: Based on current observations, the universe is expanding. “If we could watch a video recording of the history of the universe in reverse, we would see all matter in the universe collapse back to a point, not the size of a basketball, not the size of a golf ball, not even the size of a pinhead, but mathematically and logically to a point that is actually nothing (i.e., no space, no time, and no matter). In other words, once there was nothing, and then, BANG, there was something – the entire universe exploded into being! This, of course, is what is commonly called ‘the Big Bang.’”[i] What was before this big bang? What caused the big bang to happen? What was the early universe really like as it was exploding outward? Are there problems with the big bang theory? Is there a better explanation for what has been observed? Does the big bang solve as many problems as it creates?   Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer: In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered, among other things, that galaxies were moving away from us.  Consequently, it seemed reasonable that everything must have started in one place, later called the singularity. This is the basis for the Big Bang theory.[ii] The Big Bang actually wasn’t an explosion but instead was simply an expansion. “Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.”[iii] One second after the bang, there would have been “a 10-billion degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos.”[iv] Those elements would continue to separate (as the balloon expanded) and yet combine to form hydrogen and other basic elementary particles. As the early universe expanded and cooled, it left its mark as it spread out, which is observed today as the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). The CBR is evidence we can observe today for the big bang.[v] Scientists can map the CBR and determine where the hot or cold spots are, at different points, and how those spots will show where clusters and galaxies will form. The universe not only expanded in a big bang, but possibly different parts of the universe grew, or inflated, at different rates. This is suggested due to the fact that the CBR shows the overall temperature of the universe is too constant, and therefore, hot and cold spots would have had “bursts of expansion called “inflation”” to be able to reach each other and combine.[vi] The inflation theory helps solve the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the magnetic monopole problem, although it does cause some new ones.[vii] What was before the Big Bang? Scientists can only offer hypotheses with, unfortunately, little ability to test. It is suggested that the universe came from nothing. “The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy –...

Read More

Blindsided by Grace

Posted on Sep 25, 2014 in Marianis from the Front | 0 comments

  I love surprises. In fact, one of the things I love about my husband is his enthusiasm for staging a good surprise. But lately I’ve been contemplating the idea that maybe there are some surprises that I should be “outgrowing.” How does the concept of surprise figure into growing spiritual maturity? Often I am astounded at the grace of God, mercifully protecting, teaching and blessing me beyond my wildest expectations. I could, in fact, say that His grace comes by complete surprise. But is that a biblical view? Should I find myself astounded when I see God mercifully providing, from divinely orchestrating the circumstances of my son’s birth to blessing us with the gift of an abundant supply of baby clothes to outfit his first year of life? My God does not work in ways that are predictable. I can’t expect that He will always act in the same way, or that He will always do things the way I want them done. But so often, I find myself being, I think, far too surprised by His provision. Hasn’t He said He will supply all our needs? (Phil 4:19) Isn’t He our shield and protector? (Ps. 18:2) Blindsided by Grace. The phrase came to me one day, not too long ago, as I contemplated the mercies of my God, thinking how often I am astonished to see how He works. As I mulled over the idea (it has such a holy ring to it, don’t you think?), I began to wonder if being able to be caught off guard by the mercies of God is really what He is calling us to. Does that fit with the words of the Psalmist, who says: “I wait for the Lord, my soul does wait, and in His word do I hope. My soul waits for the Lord more than the watchmen for the morning; Indeed, more than the watchmen for the morning.” (Ps. 130:5-6) If I am waiting on the Lord like a watchman, I will undoubtedly still be surprised at the ways in which the everlasting, unchanging, infinite God chooses to work. After all, He, to borrow from C.S. Lewis’ vivid illustration, is “not a tame” God, and as His child I look forward to an eternity of surprises. But If I am waiting on Him, expectantly watching for Him to work, I don’t think that I will be completely blindsided by the fact that He is working! So that is my challenge to myself, in a life fraught with uncertainty, and constant temptation to live in fear: Wait on the Lord. I desire now to be living on the edge of my seat, eagerly, expectantly, breathlessly waiting and watching – what will my God think of next? I have to think that this posture of watching will, by the working of His Spirit, help me to recognize when God’s grace takes shape in ways...

Read More

Mariani Roadtrip Schedule

Posted on Sep 24, 2014 in Marianis from the Front | 0 comments

  DCTI ROADTRIP!!! Brian, Aimee, and little Caden Mariani are hitting the road this November for a whirlwind tour. They will be speaking, fundraising, and recruiting for the Discover Creation Training Institute (DCTI – a ministry of Alpha Omega Institute). AOI’s desire is to raise up teachers and leaders all over the country to defend and share their faith starting with Creation so that they can train others! If you are in these areas, come on out and hear their testimony and passion for Creation Training as Brian presents the 5 Common Deceptions in Our Culture and what you can do about it. If you are interested in Creation, come explore how you can get involved! Bring your friends and family and connect with others passionate about Creation Science and Evangelism!  Trip Schedule   Nov 1 – Denver, CO – Summit of Peace Lutheran Church,                 Contact Name: Scott Mauser                                 Number: 970-523-9943                 Location: 4661 East 136th Avenue, Thornton, CO 80602                 Time: 7:00 PM   Nov 2 – Benkelman, NE – Trinity Baptist Church (                 Contact Name: Paul Folk                                 Number: 864-313-6303 (cell) or 308-423-5582 (office)                 Location: 206 7th Ave West, Benkelman, NE 69021                 Time: 10:40 AM Sunday Service Nov 3 – Omaha, NE Area Nov 5 – Springfield – Branson, MO Area Nov 6 – Bartlesville, OK                 Contact Name: Randy Smith                                 Number: 918-327-3129 Location: 1st Floor Conference Room of the Fairfield Inn & Suites, 2107 SE Washington Blvd., Bartlesville, OK 74006                                 Located behind Freddy’s and Eggbert’s                 Time: 7:00 Nov 7 – Haviland, KS – Heart of America Science Resource Center (                 Contact Name: Stan Bryant                                 Number: 620-862-5654                 Location: 312 E. Hwy 54, Haviland, KS 67059                 Time: 7:00 pm   Nov 8 – Oklahoma City, OK Area Nov 9 – Dallas, TX Area Nov 11 – San Antonio, TX – San Antonio Bible-based Science Association (                 Contact Name: Scott Lane                                 Number: 210-861-0454 Location: Jim’s restaurant, 9950 San Pedro Ave, San Antonio, TX 78216, Located on the corner of San Pedro and Ramsey – approximately 1 mile outside Loop 410                 Time: 7:00   Nov 12 – Houston, TX Area Nov 14 – Pensacola, FL Area Nov 16 – Atlanta, GA Area Nov 20 – Greenville, SC – Creation Study Group (                 Contact Name: Skip Skipper                                 Number:  864-868-9275 (home) or 864-506-1506 (cell)                 Location: Second Presbyterian Church, 105 River St., Greenville, SC                 Time: 6:30 to visit and 7:00 presentation time Nov 21 – Cary, NC – Colonial Baptist Church (                 Contact Name: Scott Wylie                                 Number: 919-233-9100 or Location: 6051 Tryon Road, Cary, NC  29518. The meeting will be in room number WC116 (commonly known as the “Parlor”) Guests should use the entrance labeled “East Entrance.”                 Time: 7:00 PM Nov 23 – Charleston, WV Area Nov 24 – Dayton, OH...

Read More

Elements of Life – Creation Perspective

Posted on Sep 16, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

Creation Answer: God created the Earth before the sun, moon, and stars, and  so the earth is very unique. He created the sun and the moon specifically to be perfect for the life that He created on the earth. The earth is perfect for life, especially compared to other planets. The earth is so perfect that naturalists have to make countless assumptions, making it harder to believe their story than to accept God and His record of history. God created and placed the elements just the way He wanted them – to give Him glory. There is no way for naturalism to explain why physics and the elements work the way they do. Renowned physicist James Clark Maxwell states that “there are immense numbers of other atoms of the same kind [throughout the universe]…Each is physically independent of all the others…We are then forced to look beyond them to some common cause or common origin [i.e. supernatural creation] to explain why this singular relation of quality exists.” His words still hold true that there needs to be a cause for the laws and structure of our universe.[i] Currently, “there’s one thing on which most geochemists and astronomers agree: The celestial pantry is now empty of a key ingredient in the recipe for Earth.”[ii] This is saying that the origin of water on earth is still unknown. Water could not have survived the conditions in space and the hot early earth; it would have been burned up and lost to space. It has long been thought that water has come from comets shortly after the majority of the earth had accumulated, but recent studies of the water on comets show that they have a heavier water molecule. So those comets could not have contributed the majority of the water to the earth, because making the earth’s oceans from those comets would have been like “trying to make a low-fat dessert from heavy cream.”[iii] “Scientists don’t really understand why various objects have different amounts of heavy water…People generally think that objects which formed further from the Sun should have more heavy water, but the new measurements don’t really fit.”[iv] Scientists estimate that “probably less than 15 percent” of the earth’s oceans could have come from comets or other space objects, although there may be evidence that some comets or other objects may in fact have the correct water for the earth.[v] Some scientists conjecture that “if existing objects in space couldn’t have combined to make Earth’s unique mix of water and other elements, the planet must have formed from—and entirely depleted—an ancient supply of water-rich material that has no modern analog.”[vi] This means that there is no evidence of that hypothetical material that preserved the water during the formation of the earth. “Water isn’t the only matter on our planet today that seems unlikely to have formed at Earth’s proximity to the sun. There...

Read More

Elements of Life – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Posted on Sep 5, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Introduction: The Earth is a unique place that is not poisonous to life, but has all the resources we need to survive… plus so much more. Why does the earth have all of the elements that it does? How were all of the different elements created? Do the other planets have the same elements? Were there heavier elements on the earth long ago that have radioactively decayed over time?   Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer: The Big Bang produced hydrogen, helium, and lithium, which would eventually condense into stars, and as time went on, many other elements were formed within these stars. Every element heavier than iron has been produced by supernovas, or exploding stars, since these elements need increased amounts of energy for production. As the universe has aged, these elements have been propagated throughout the universe, including the dust cloud that will condense and form our sun and planets. If our solar system were located elsewhere in the Milky Way Galaxy, then Earth would not have acquired the same elemental composition that it has today. The Earth formed around the recently condensed sun as rocky material clumped together, cleaning up its orbital path around the sun. There are 92 naturally occurring elements that compose the earth and these elements bond to form a vast array of minerals.[i] “Scientists at the Carnegie Institution have found that the mineral kingdom co-evolved with life, and that up to two thirds of the more than 4,000 known types of minerals on Earth can be directly or indirectly linked to biological activity. The finding, published in American Mineralogist, could aid scientists in the search for life on other planets.”[ii] Clumping material, like asteroids, in the universe appear to have around 60 different types of minerals. Planets with volcanism and water can have up to around 500 different minerals, “however, only on Earth – at least in our solar system – did mineral evolution progress to the next stages.” The activity of the tectonic plates on Earth add to the amount of mineral types, but “of the approximately 4,300 known mineral species on Earth, perhaps two-thirds of them are biologically mediated,” and also “principally a consequence of our oxygen-rich atmosphere.” “For at least 2.5 billion years, and possibly since the emergence of life, Earth’s mineralogy has evolved in parallel with biology…One implication of this finding is that remote observations of the mineralogy of other moons and planets may provide crucial evidence for biological influences beyond Earth.”[iii] A few of the planets in our solar system have some of the same elements as earth, like oxygen, magnesium, calcium, and aluminum. Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements, but without the protection of an atmosphere, it would easily be blown away. Hydrogen is crucial to life, as it is essential for water and water is essential for the evolution of life. The planets and other objects in our solar system should be of similar composition, since they all formed from the same dust...

Read More

Our Sun – Creation Perspective

Posted on Sep 3, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Creation Answer: As the Bible records, God created the sun on day 4… after the earth. God created the lights in the heavens (including the sun) for signs, seasons, days and years and to give light on the earth.  (Gen 1:14-15) The sun also declares the glory of God. (Psalm 19:1) The sun causes different climates and weather patterns and even “plays a major role in producing clouds.”[i] There are many factors about the sun that make it very important for life on earth.[ii] Naturalistic methods say that the sun is 4.6 billion years old, but that result is based on assumptions about how much hydrogen has fused into helium. Naturalists have to take these results on faith that their assumptions are correct, whereas creationists have faith in the Bible and that God made the sun with the composition of elements that He wanted.[iii] Many say that our sun is very average and normal. Cosmologist Carl Sagan said, “Where are we? Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.”[iv] Ph.D. astronomer Theodore P. Snow stated, “Our star, the sun, is rather ordinary…in many respects then, the sun is a very run-of-the-mill entity.”[v] In reality, our sun is “brighter than about 85 percent of all stars, and it has more mass than about 90 percent…Our sun is very stable and has small flares, if the flares were bigger they could rip away our atmosphere and fry the earth…A superflare could be deadly, but there is no evidence of any superflares…our sun is very unusual because of this.”[vi] “Sun-like stars normally produce a bright superflare about once a century…a consensus is emerging that our sun is extraordinarily stable.”[vii] Hopefully this stability continues, because Earth is constantly threatened by solar activity which could do tremendous damage to electronics and communications systems, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. A great challenge to naturalistic models is that the sun needs to have been extraordinarily stable throughout its whole life. The young faint sun paradox explains that as the sun has aged, it should now be 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago, so consequently in the past it was dimmer and the earth would have been colder. Astrophysicist Danny Faulkner describes the problem that at 3.8 billion years ago the earth would have been an average temperature of -3° C, which is below freezing.[viii] “Simple energy-balance climate models of the Budyko/Sellers type predict that a small (2–5%) decrease in [current] solar output could result in a runaway glaciation on the Earth. But solar fluxes 25–30% lower early in the Earth’s history apparently did not lead to this result.”[ix] That would have been devastating for life as it was just starting to evolve....

Read More

Our Sun – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Posted on Sep 2, 2014 in Marianis from the Front, The Biggest Challenges to Evolution | 0 comments

  Introduction: When you look at it, the sun, it seems very close. However, light from the sun takes 8 minutes to get from the sun to the earth. The sun is so big, you could take around one million earths and fit them into the size of the sun. The sun is the closest star to Earth at a distance of 93 million miles.[i] Our sun is considered an average star, although very special to our solar system in many ways. Not only does it provide light to the earth, it provides heat for the planet as well. How old is the sun? How did the sun form? How did the earth form around the sun? How has the sun changed over time?   Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:  Around 4.6 billion years ago, the sun was formed out of a huge cloud of dust and gas. Most of these gases were condensed into the center of the cloud, due to gravity and other external forces. The condensing of the gases within this cloud made it very hot and allowed the fusion reactions to begin, lighting up the sun and giving off the energy which is so essential for the earth as we know it. The leftover matter of this cloud, further away from the sun, coalesced into our planets.[ii] The sun is the largest object in our solar system, but is simply referred to as, and rightfully so, an “ordinary” or “medium” sized star. The sun contains about 70% hydrogen and 28% helium and the last 2% is composed of heavier elements.[iii]  The age has been calculated to about 4.6 billion years based on the methods of helioseismology, which examines the rate of fusion today and determines how long the sun has been burning.[iv] Regions of the sun rotate around its axis at different rates, around its equator, the sun rotates every 25.4 days, but near the north and south poles it takes 36 days to rotate. At the core of the sun, temperatures can reach up to 28 million degrees Fahrenheit. The sun is expected to be around for about 10 billion years. Since the sun is approximately 4.6 billion years old, it has used up about half of the hydrogen that it has in its core. Eventually, it is going to run out of hydrogen, but before that it will swell into a red giant star which will then envelope and destroy the whole earth. An interesting conundrum, the young sun paradox, was first brought up by Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972, which says that the sun was dimmer in the past and therefore the earth would have been colder. But geology has shown that the earth was warmer in the past than we would be anticipate, because, for the majority of its existence it has had liquid water. Complex interactions with larger oceans, less clouds, and life evolving (which influenced the gases of the atmosphere causing a greenhouse effect), kept the earth sufficiently warm and stable.[v] One researcher says, “we show that the...

Read More