The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

Kuiper belt are supposed to be pristine samples of the early solar system, but perhaps the largest TNO, Pluto, shows evidence of much reworking (discussed in a later section). Furthermore, there is a problem with the densities, and hence composition, of trans- Neptunian objects (TNOs). In an unpublished work, I have taken the inferred composition of comets and found that the maximum density possible is 1.25 gm/cm 3 . However, the measured densities of several TNOs, such as Pluto and its satellite Charon, are close to 2.0 gm/cm 3 . Creationists are encouraged to continue monitoring developments on comets. 2. Lunar dust I pointed out in my earlier review that one of the arguments for recent origin, lunar dust, had been debunked in the creation literature. The problem was that very early, indirect, measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material was anomalously high; later, more direct, measurements were orders of magnitude lower. Despite this, some recent creationists continue to use the moon dust argument. Hallick and O’Brien (2013) recently published a new measurement of lunar dust accumulation that may raise the influx rate once again. However, there are other, and probably better, ways to interpret this new data. While this new data has been discussed some among creationists, nothing has yet appeared in print concerning it. Therefore, it appears that the measured amount of lunar dust still is not a good argument for recent creation, but recent creationists are encouraged to monitor the situation. 3. Planetary magnetic fields In my earlier review, I briefly described Barnes’ pioneering work on the earth’s decaying magnetic field in the creation literature, as well as Humphreys’ continuing work, such as correctly predicting the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune using a creation model of magnetic fields. Humphreys (2002b, 2011) has published further on earth’s decaying magnetic field, as well as criticizing the dynamo model that supposedly maintains the earth’s magnetic field on evolutionary time scales (Humphreys, 2013). Humphreys (2012) also documented how Mercury’s magnetic field is decreasing, in concordance with expectations within the creation model. Humphreys (2008b) also applied his creation theory of magnetic fields to explain cosmic magnetic fields. Recently, Humphreys and De Spain (2016) have summarized much of Humphreys’ work on magnetic fields. 4. Solar neutrinos Beginning in 1980 and for a few years afterward, there were several papers in the creation literature promoting the idea that the sun was deriving its energy from gravitational potential energy and that astronomers consequently had measured a decrease in the sun’s diameter. If this were true, it would be a powerful argument against the assumed 4.6-billion-year age of the sun. Alas, it is not true, as was demonstrated by DeYoung and Rush (1989). I did not discuss this in my previous review, because it ought to have been a dead issue. However, even today this question comes up frequently. Perhaps what helped keep this idea alive was the solar neutrino problem that arose in the late 1960s. Measurements of the neutrino flux from nuclear reactions within the sun had consistently been about one-third of those predicted. This suggested that the sun was deriving at most one-third of its power from nuclear reactions. Presumably, the sun was obtaining two-thirds of its power from gravitational contraction. However, the solar neutrino problem has been definitively solved by the discovery that neutrinos oscillate between the three types (Newton, 2002a). I urge creationists not to use the argument that the sun is shrinking or the solar neutrino problem. 5. Faint young sun paradox One of the young-age indicators that has come about since my earlier review is the faint young sun paradox (Faulkner, 1998b). According to stellar evolution theory, early in its history the sun was much fainter than it is today. With much less solar influx, the early earth ought to have been about 17 C cooler than today. Since the earth’s average temperature now is 15 C, one would expect the early earth to have been encased in ice. However, no one thinks that the early earth was like this. There have been many attempts to explain the faint young sun paradox, but none of the proposed solutions seem to work (Oard, 2011; Coppedge, 2013). 6. Interacting Binary Stars In a series of papers, Ron Samec (Samec 2014a; Samec 2016; Samec, et al. 2010; Samec and Figg 2012; Samec and Shebs 2014) has shown that the rate of evolution of many close binary stars is much faster than had been thought. This has obvious implications regarding the age of such systems. This work is very promising as a possible young-age indicator, and it ought to be pursued. 7. Neutron Stars in Globular Clusters Nethercott (2016) recently drew attention to the presence of neutron stars in globular star clusters. The progenitors of neutron stars are thought to be massive stars. Stars with sufficient mass to produce neutron stars ought to have short lifetimes, certainly less than a billion years. Astronomers think that globular clusters are at least ten billion years old, and that globular clusters have not had significant star formation for most of the past ten billion years. Yet, there are significant numbers of neutron stars in globular clusters. Furthermore, neutron stars often have high space velocity, probably from impulsive kicks they received from an asymmetry in the explosions that formed them. Therefore, neutron stars ought to depart globular clusters rapidly, in a matter of thousands of years. These two lines of evidence suggest that globular clusters are not nearly as old as generally thought. 8. Interior heat of the Jovian Planets If the solar system were billions of years old, then primordial heat of planetary bodies would have dissipated long ago. For instance, temperature increases with depth inside the earth. In the nineteenth century, Lord Kelvin modeled this temperature gradient to calculate the earth’s maximum age as a few tens of millions of years. We now know that radioactive decay within the earth’s core maintains the current temperature gradient, so earth’s maximum age is far older than Lord Kelvin computed (since this is a maximum age, the earth could be far younger). However, three of the four Jovian planets, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune, emit significantly far more energy than they receive from the sun (Henry, 2001). Radioactive decay cannot power this excess. There is no known physical mechanism that can explain the interior heat of these three planets, other than primordial heat. This is consistent with the creationary timeframe, but not the evolutionary one (Samec, 2000). 9. Volcanic Satellites Related to the internal heat of three of the Jovian planets is the internal heat of some of the satellites of the Jovian planets. In 1979, Voyagers 1 and 2 revealed that Jupiter’s satellite Io was active volcanically, more active than the earth or any other body in the solar system. Given Io’s relatively low density, it cannot contain significant amounts of radioactive material to heat it sufficiently to cause volcanism. Since Io orbits so closely to Jupiter, most astronomers concluded that tremendous tides raised on Io led to flexing that produced frictional heat sufficient to cause volcanism. However, Spencer (2003) has analyzed this mechanism and Faulkner ◀ Creation Astronomy II ▶ 2018 ICC 40