Evidence of a watery origin for the solar system
by Andrew Rigg
Back in July 2005, NASA performed a spectacular maneuvre with a spacecraft, crashing
it into the comet Tempel 1. The experiment aimed to understand the substances from
which our solar system, our planet and ultimately life itself allegedly ‘evolved’.
|
NASA/JPL/UMD artwork by Pat Rawlings
|
Aside from sensationalist evolutionary overtones of the mission, it was a success.
The spacecraft’s impactor, a 370kg (816lb) copper bullet, smashed into the
comet’s surface, producing a spectacular plume of ejecta—the debris
cloud thrown into space as a result of the impact. Astronomers on Earth observed
the impact, but the best images came from Deep Impact’s mother craft, as it
completed its flyby of the comet.
The impact was also observed by the Spitzer Space Telescope, an orbiting telescope
that can detect light at wavelengths that humans can’t see. This allowed astronomers
to analyse the light reflecting off the dust and debris thrown up by the impact,
to try to determine the chemical and geological makeup of the comet.
Figure 1. Idealized galaxy spectra showing typical ‘absorption’
lines (black against a rainbow-coloured background) produced by hydrogen atoms absorbing
light. The more distant the galaxy, the more the lines are shifted to the
red side of the spectrum (log scale).
|
While the data produced by the Deep Impact experiment will keep astronomers busy
for years to come, early results have already produced surprises.
Experimental science has shown us that different types of chemical elements and
compounds emit and absorb light in specific parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.1 Astronomers use a technique known
as spectroscopy to analyse the light from stars and gas clouds in space, looking
for the specific signatures of their chemical makeup. The chemical signatures show
up as dark bands (absorption lines) or light bands (emission lines) in the spectra
of the object being studied.
In the same way, scientists used the Spitzer Space telescope to record the chemical
composition of the cloud of ejecta thrown up from Comet Tempel 1’s surface
when the impactor hit.
Something out of the ordinary
At the time of writing, scientists had found the signatures of a number of the components
of the comet’s interior. They include silica, the major component of sand,
and ethane, a gas that is used on Earth as a fuel and a refrigerant. Two other chemical
signatures were also found, pointing to the existence of chemical compounds scientists
could not have predicted in their wildest dreams. The compounds in question are
carbonates, found in the shells of sea creatures and limestone, and clays.2
|
NASA/JPL-Caltech/UMD
|
|
NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute
|
|
NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute
The Cassini–Huygens mission to Saturn sent these fascinating images of its closest
moon Enceladus. The lower two images (spectral analysis on right) show a geyser
of water shooting up from the surface extending hundreds of kilometres into space.
These and other discoveries demonstrate that water is plentiful in space
|
|
The big problem surrounding these two compounds lies in the knowledge that carbonates
and clays only ever form in liquid water, not in the icy outer reaches of the Solar
system where Comet Tempel 1 is believed to have originated.
These features are a major problem for those who deny the existence of the Creator
or the historical accuracy of His Word
|
But the crystalline silicates found in conjunction with the carbonates and clays
also pose a problem of their own.3
Astronomers have long believed comets to be abundant in silicates. However the silicates
found in Tempel 1’s makeup are crystalline and require temperatures over 700°C
(1,300°F) to form. This temperature is, in our solar system, found only very
close to the Sun.
In conventional terms, comets such as Tempel 1, a short-period comet, are thought
to form well beyond the orbit of the gas planet Neptune, where temperatures are
consistently close to absolute zero (-273°C), not close to the Sun where temperatures
soar. The existence of water-formed compounds, crystalline silicates and ethane
gas in the same comet at the same time pose very hard questions for evolutionary
scientists. It seems impossible to conceive of the very different conditions required
all combining for their formation. The presence of liquid water requires a number
of very specific conditions, not the least of which is a very narrow temperature
and pressure range not found in interplanetary space.
For Christians however, the watery chemicals found in Tempel 1 are not unexpected
at all. In fact, water in one form or another is found in abundance in the universe.4 We would expect this if we based
our search for understanding on the accounts of creation found in the Bible, rather
than on atheistic hypotheses that discount the biblical record.
In both the Old and New Testaments, we are told and reminded that water played an
important role in the formation of our solar system, and quite possibly the universe
as a whole.
Genesis 1:2–7 recounts the formation of the earth
(and possibly the universe5) from
water (referred to in Genesis 1:2 as the ‘deep’). And while it is
speculative and not something that is explicit in the Genesis text, it is possible
that God used the same processes to create the other planets in our solar system
as well as planets that possibly exist in solar systems elsewhere in our galaxy
and universe.
Furthermore, in the New Testament, the Apostle Peter uses the historical truth of
the solar system’s watery beginnings in a prophetic sense (2
Peter 3:5–7). Indeed he rebukes those who wilfully oppose the Gospel
and the historical record of the Scriptures.
|
NASA / JPL - Caltech
|
The scenario of creation described in Genesis, and by Peter, while fitting the evidence
we find in the universe, also paints a picture that is the opposite of that portrayed
by the big bang model of origins. The big bang model says that far from starting
with liquid water, the universe began in a superheated explosion. And right down
to the naturalistic models of planet formation, extremely high temperatures play
an important role in the origin and development of the universe.
Scientists continue to wonder about anomalous and seemingly paradoxical finds in
our Universe. These include not only water-formed compounds in the nucleus of a
comet, but also water ice clouds around distant stars, or the existence of
complex galactic structures in the distant Universe.6,7
Christians can rest assured that such evidence supports the record of history God
has given us in His holy Word. But these features are a major problem to those who
deny the existence of the Creator or the historical accuracy of His Word.
|
NASA
|
|
NASA
|
|
Uranus (top) and Neptune (bottom) are planets known as ‘gas giants’.
Creationist predictions about these planets proved to be more accurate than evolutionary
ones.
|
|
Successful predictions from watery-origin model
Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys proposed that God first created the earth and other
heavenly bodies out of water. Then, according to this model, He transformed
much of the water into other substances. Based on plausible assumptions about the
initial magnetism, and a biblical age of the Creation, Humphreys also calculated
the magnetic fields of other planets (and the sun). His model predicts the
field strengths we observe, and explains features that are a puzzle to evolutionists.1
They include the moon’s strong magnetic field in the past and the strong field
of Mercury, although both rotate very slowly.2
In 1984, Dr Humphreys predicted that the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune were
about 100,000 times the evolutionary predictions from their ‘dynamo’
theory. The two rival models were tested when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew past
these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune were just as Humphreys
had predicted.3 Yet many anti-creationists call creation ‘unscientific’
because it supposedly makes no predictions!
References and notes
- For a summary and references to Dr Humphreys’ papers, see Sarfati, J., The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young,
Creation 20(2):15–17, 1998.
- Hood, L.L., The enigma of lunar magnetism, Eos 62(16):161–163.
- Dr Humphreys had predicted the observed field strengths of the order of 1024 J/T
— see Humphreys, R., Good news from Neptune: the Voyager 2 measurements, Creation
Research Society Quarterly 27(1):15–17, 1990.
|
|
Related Articles
Further Reading
Related Products
References and notes
- Sir Isaac Newton, a biblical creationist, was the first to discover
(1672) that a ray of white light could be split into the colours of the rainbow
by shining it through a prism. In 1861, German scientists Kirchhoff and Bunsen discovered
emission and absorption lines in light. Their wavelengths depended on the chemical
composition of the object emitting or absorbing the light. Thus spectroscopy became
a vital tool for chemical analysis. See also Williams, A. and Hartnett, J., Dismantling
the big bang, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, pp. 38–49, 2005.
Return to Text.
- Calvin, W., NASA’s Spitzer and deep impact build recipe
for comet soup, <deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/press/050907jpl.html>, 7 September
2005. Return to Text.
- Chang, K., Composition of a comet poses a puzzle for scientists,
New York Times, <www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/science/07comet.html?ex=1131253200&en=8d783ee4bedaaba6&ei=5070>,
7 September 2005. Return to Text.
-
Cosmic water traced by Europe’s space telescope ISO, 8 November 2005.
Return to Text.
- Dr Russell Humphreys has set out a possible scenario for the
creation of the Universe out of water in his book, Starlight and time:
Solving the puzzle of distant starlight in a young universe.
Return to Text.
- Rigg, A., Galaxy games, Creation
27(1):18–21, 2004. Return to Text.
- Rigg, A., Young galaxies
too old for the big bang, Creation 26(3):15, 2004.
Return to Text.
| Besides the many thousands of articles that are freely available on this site, our staff answer many hundreds of emails in response to it. Help us help advance the gospel.  | | |
|
