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

concluded that it is not capable of explaining Io’s internal heat. Therefore, Io’s hot interior suggests that Io is at most a few million, not billions, of years old. There are two other volcanically active satellites in the solar system, Saturn’s Enceladus (Walker, 2009; Spencer, 2015c) and Neptune’s Triton. The primary volcanic material on Io is sulfur, but on Enceladus and Triton, the volcanic material primarily is water. With a much lower temperature required for molten water, the volcanism of Enceladus and Triton is called cryovolcanism . Even though the temperature regime is less on these two satellites than on Io, a similar constraint on time applies. Surprisingly, little about these two satellites has appeared in the creation literature. This subject needs to be explored more. Spencer (2015c) has called attention to the fact that Jupiter’s Europa and Uranus’ Ariel have low crater density, suggesting recent geological activity, even though these small planets lack an internal heat source to drive the geology. 10. Pluto One of the more pleasant surprises in astronomy for creationists in recent years was the arrival of the New Horizons mission to Pluto in the summer of 2015. The cameras aboard the spacecraft returned stunning photos of about half the surfaces of Pluto and its largest satellite, Charon. In the evolutionary paradigm, everyone expected that the surfaces of both bodies would be saturated with craters. However, the photos revealed very few craters. This and other characteristics of Pluto and Charon are difficult to explain in terms of the evolutionary paradigm of billions of years. There is much evidence that Pluto and Charon are far younger than generally thought (Spencer, 2015b). Evolutionary scientists will be evaluating this information for a very long time. While no creationist predicted this startling result, it is the sort of thing that we might expect from bodies that were recently created. Additionally, the four smaller satellites of Pluto rotate faster than they revolve (Hartnett 2016). Of Pluto’s five satellites, only Charon rotates synchronously, meaning that it rotates and revolves at the same rate. This is typical of planetary satellites in the solar system. Synchronous rotation normally is attributed to tidal locking, a mechanism that requires great time (Davis, 2017). Therefore, biblical creationists must assume that most satellites were created with synchronous rotation, with a yet unknow purpose. CRATERING Perhaps the reason no creationist predicted the outcome of the New Horizons mission is that creationists have not yet developed a coherent theory of how and when craters formed in the solar system. For a long time, many creationists assumed that most craters in the solar system were the result of impacts during some catastrophe, such as the Flood (Unfred, 1984), with the possibility of some later catastrophes. Some creationists have suggested that many craters occurred at the time of the Fall, but this would appear to go far beyond the effects of the curse. At any rate, there has been reluctance to the concept of at least some craters dating from the Creation Week. As previously mentioned, this idea may result from an improper view of the meaning of “very good” in Genesis 1:31. Faulkner (1999) has offered an alternate proposal in which many craters throughout the solar system date from the Creation Week, in an event planetary scientists call the early heavy bombardment, with a second episode of much fewer, but larger, impacts at the time of the Flood, an event planetary scientists call the late heavy bombardment. Understandably, this proposal met with some early opposition, but that opposition has softened recently (Maurer and DeYoung, 2014; Spencer, 2014b). Much of the reason for this softening of opposition is due to considerations of physical difficulties (such as heat generation) with such intense bombardment in a very short period (Oard, 2012). If craters were part of the miracle of creation, physical difficulties can be avoided. Consequently, two camps have emerged. One camp believes that most craters date from the Flood (Froede, 2002; Oard, 2009a; 2009b; 2013; Holt, 2013; Spencer, 1994; 1998; 2008). The other camp believes that many craters originated on Day Four, but that some impacts date from the Flood (Faulkner, 1999; 2014c; Maurer and DeYoung, 2014; Samec, 2008a; 2008b). Both models ought to be more fully developed. Related to the question of cratering is the question of the likely source of impacting bodies that caused craters, asteroids (minor planets) and comets. Other than the role comets play in limiting the age of the solar system, very little has appeared in the creation literature on small solar system bodies (SSSBs), as these objects are collectively known. Therefore, creationists have not developed a theory as to the origin and history of SSSB’s. Of course, the fallback position is that God created SSSBs on Day Four along with other astronomical bodies. However, some creationists still consider a disrupted planet to be a viable explanation for the asteroid belt (Parks, 1990; Froede and DeYoung, 1996), though this proposal is problematic. Creationists have not discussed what changes SSSBs may have undergone since their creation. Related to this, in a series of papers Snelling (2014a; 2014b; 2014c; 2014d; 2014e) has studied radioisotope dating of meteorites, presumably samples of minor planets. In another development that may be of interest as we strive to understand SSSBs within the creation paradigm, there has been a blurring of the distinction between comets and asteroids (cf. Faulkner, 2015). Clearly, much work remains in addressing SSSBs. PLANETARYASTRONOMY Related to cratering (and volcanism) is the need of a creation theory of planetary science. Unfortunately, there has not been much in the creation literature on this topic. As previously mentioned, there has been some discussion of the surfaces of some of the satellites of the Jovian planets. Hill (2008) has discussed the sparse density of craters on the surface of Venus, concluding that this indicates Venus underwent catastrophic resurfacing in the past. However, Oard (2009a) disagrees with Hill’s interpretation. Creager (2008) and Samec (2013, 2014b) have similarly interpreted Mars in terms of a catastrophic episode or episodes on its surface. It is ironic that evolutionary planetary scientists readily accept catastrophic resurfacing on Venus and flooding of biblical proportions on Mars, yet they steadfastly refuse to believe that either process could have occurred on earth (Faulkner, 2003). This progress in understanding planets, satellites, and SSSBs has been piecemeal. We need a broader theory for interpretation. Part of the problem is a lack of an agreed-upon coherent cratering theory. However, this would focus merely on the surfaces of solar system bodies. Virtually nothing in the creation literature has appeared to address planetary atmospheres. For instance, did Venus always have the sort of atmosphere that it now has? Mars could not always have had its current atmosphere, because its surface bears testament to huge liquid water flows on its surface, as well as massive bodies of water on its surface, yet its current atmosphere is far too cold and thin to support liquid water. Obviously, Mars once had a much denser, warmer atmosphere. Was it created with a substantial atmosphere that it since has lost? Or was a thicker atmosphere and abundant water catastrophically added to Mars, whereupon it lost both? If so, when did this happen, and what Faulkner ◀ Creation Astronomy II ▶ 2018 ICC 41