Also Available in:
This article is from
Creation 41(3):45, July 2019

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

Ceres Surprises



The dwarf planet Ceres is the largest body in the solar system’s asteroid belt, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Recently, NASA’s Dawn spacecraft made detailed fly-over inspections of Ceres and beamed back data that shocked many scientists.

Ceres shows clear signs of being very geologically active.1 For such a small body—only 1.28% the mass of our moon—Ceres has long-age-believing planetary scientists shaking their heads in wonder. One can almost hear them asking, “Are you Cerious!?”

Active interior

What the scientists found was cryovolcanism, i.e., ‘cold volcanos’ where ‘volatiles’ under the surface (chemicals such as water, ammonia and methane) are heated by volcanic activity and erupt into space, where they quickly freeze due to the intense cold. Huge plumes of cryovolcanic ejecta can sometimes be seen on other planetary bodies in the solar system. On Ceres, scientists photographed very bright regions where mud is being ejected from the interior in large quantities.2 The mystery for evolutionists is how Ceres, which they believe to be very old, can still be so hot inside. Such a small body should have cooled down long ago. Adding to the conundrum for secularist planetary scientists is that, given the tiny size of the dwarf planet, its alleged long age of billions of years, and the amount of material that is escaping into space, all the water and other volatiles should have been used up long ago. Even if impacts from small volatile-bearing meteorites had struck the tiny world over its alleged billions of years of history, it is not plausible that this would be enough to replenish the supply.

Age of Ceres

Ceres is too far away from large planets to receive an influx of energy from gravitational effects/tidal heating, and radioactive decay can’t provide the heat over billions of years either.

Secularists believe that planetary bodies were originally molten and gradually cooled. They predicted that Ceres, a miniature world floating alone in the coldness of space, and believed to be the same age as the solar system, would have become frozen and inactive eons ago.

It appears that tiny Ceres, with its lively, hot interior, is no more than a few thousand years old. This is consistent with the Bible’s record that God formed the earth first, around 6,000 years ago.

References and notes

  1. Dickinson, D., Dawn probes role of cryovolcanism on Ceres;, 17 September 2018. Return to text.
  2. Wenz, J., Volcanoes of mud erupt from dwarf planet Ceres;, 17 September 2018. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Universe by Design
by Danny Faulkner
US $15.00
Soft Cover

Readers’ comments

Norman P.
It's good for the sincere Christian believer, i.e those who believe the word of God, to have such information. But no matter what, the unrighteous will continue to deny the truth (Rom 1:18; 2 Thess 2:7-12).
Robert H.
Another nail in the evolutionary coffin!
Alf F.
When a competent artisan restores an article of furniture, in order to prove the previous dilapidated condition of the article he will leave a small but clear unrestored area somewhere out of sight, to refer to if the customer refuses to pay up on the grounds that "no work was done because the article was always in good condition".
I am not analogising that the universe is a restored one, but rather most definitely stating that it has been recently created, and that God will always leave a witness to everything He has done, including the work of creation. Our God is a Master Workman and Ceres is just one of a myriad witnesses He has given us to discover, approach, scrutinise and marvel at.
Thank you, Lord, for Ceres.
Bill P.
Those in science whose only faith is in their religion of evolution are stunned because they believe that humans came about because "a star died & made man" from it's elements floating around in space, elements which have no ability to think, design, & create. This religion comes from a wanna be god (small g). So it's no surprise that such scientists are surprised as they look for proof of their faith & instead they find strong evidence that supports recent creation. There is a living God. He created the heavens, the earth, & everything in it.
Lassi P.
Magnetic fields, asteroids and now Ceres! One wonders wether there's anything in our solar system that doesn't shock evolutionists... and progressive creationists. Rather bad time to be a compromiser.
Edmond C.
There seems to be a pretty steady stream of evidence that, at least, our solar system is much younger than the conventional science theories can explain. Moon recession, Saturn's rings, Pluto's relatively young looking surface, the earth's magnetic field, and many others and now we can add Ceres to that growing list. But, I don't think it matters how much evidence you find that the solar system is young, it will not be accepted by scientists who refuse to accept that God, not naturalistic processes, created the universe. Thanks for pointing out another example of how the current scientific thinking can't explain the observable science. Like all of these discoveries an unprovable highly unlikely explanation will be given that will satisfy scientists who can't accept anything but the naturalistic explanation. Expect an explanation along the lines of iron preserving soft tissue for millions of years and all the questions to magically go away.
Raymond S.
Is it plausible that all these bodies including the Earth started out cold and solid, then were heated by accelerated nuclear decay at the time of the Flood? Would that also solve the excess heat problem of accelerated nuclear decay, if the decay had to heat the planet from a cold solid to what we have today (solid core, liquid outer core, "plastic" mantle)?
Jonathan Obrien
It would be possible. Any statement about the initial conditions of these bodies would be speculation, but we could explore what that would mean for heat issues and the conditions of these bodies in the present.
Dan B.
Given all the challenges CMI gets from old-earthers, as sometimes examined in feedback articles, one wonders why they don't bother to post in comments threads pertinent to the issue. I'm not holding my breath for any comeback on this brief but incisive account of the Ceres problem, any more than for the Pluto problem or the Titan problem or the Enceladus problem or the Io problem....
Gerry T.
The evidence against billions of years continues to grow but yet secular science continues to assert the narrative of long eons of time. It is disturbing to see so many theologians being taken in by this false narrative and trying to reconcile the unreconcilable.
Richard S.
It's been said before, but I will say it again: In the world of government-funded research, all of the big bucks have been drawn from the promoters of the Neodarwinian establishment. As long as those big donors sustain this habit, the critics, both defenders of the Biblical account in Genesis and independent observers who merely run across the ever-increasing list of discoveries contradictory to the Darwinian gospel, will not harvest the recognition nor receive the resources they deserve. It's the donors who set the course. It is a situation that sustains half truths and outright fables. Aristotle, in attempting to answer Heraclitus on the problem of universal motion concludes that there must be a "Prime Mover." Can one imagine a similar conclusion being touted by the "bought" Neodarwinian scientists that would cause them to admit that all that can be known is revealed to man's Divine gift of Reason that he might fulfill his first assigned task by his God and Creator — by experience and trial to discover how to subdue the earth and then to hold dominion over it and all that is in it. Meanwhile, new generations of university science faculty will depend on the current big donors for their efforts to be noted and promoted while the "mainstream" will continue to spread their Neo-Darwinian myths to the confusion of many an elementary and secondary school student who is being prepared to join the indebted society of the unsciences. There is big time work to be done.
Joshua M.
Try electricity. Amateur astrophysicist Jacob Gable has demonstrably proven that outgassing events (aka 'cryovolcanism') are caused by electrical imbalances. There is no doubting this any longer. It is observable and repeatable in laboratory conditions. The same is true of comets. Our universe seethes with electric current and the longer astrophysics ignores it as a primary cause of a myriad of interrelated space phenomena, the further down into the black hole of ignorance we sink.

And before you go and dismiss this as some pseudoscience quack, at least watch Gable's Youtube videos (([link deleted per feedback rules]UC4WIS0datkI6Lk8kc9ahEAg)) and then repeat the experiments yourself. Gable repeated all known outgassing phenomenon in a vacuum flask on earth using only electricity. An amateur puts the PhDs to shame because he dares to explore what the mainstream contines to ignore.

The sooner Creationism frees itself from the shackles of Einstein, the sooner empirical science can return to astrophysics. The universe is electric. Deal with it.
Jonathan Sarfati
From to time, we have been asked about the electric universe universe theory. As I say to all the enquirers, CMI can't adopt maverick theories in operational science otherwise we would be fighting on two fronts, as explained in my paper on quantum mechanics. In particular, the electric universe universe theory handwaves to ‘explain’ phenomena that are explained fine with more conventional operational scientific theories, not just quantum mechanics but also relativity, gravity, nuclear and particle physics, and even conventional electromagnetism.

Mathis, a leading proponent of the electric universe theory, is certainly not sympathetic to creation, and has had interaction with creationists showing that he is not very well informed. As I explained to another inquirer (and you can make a fair guess what Mathis was claiming from the answer):

Mathis makes a couple of errors. One involves his lack of understanding of facts v interpretations (see for example Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias), and he holds to the myth of neutrality (Myth of neutrality).

Also, it is rather presumptuous to say, “he doesn't know that we have a constant recycling of the field.” Dr Humphreys is well aware of the evolutionary dynamo idea. But he has pointed out that they haven't a viable working model for the Earth's field, and that it doesn't explain fields in bodies that couldn't have a liquid core if they were as old as evolutionists claim.

Note that exponential winding down is basic physics of an circuit with resistance and inductance. My article The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young is basically a summary of Dr Humphreys’ research, and includes objections to skeptical arguments. …

The cited article addresses the magnetic field reversals. The overall decay is inescapable even if there is a sinusoidal component, which likely occurred during the Flood year (see the diagram at the top). As for being hot enough,you may well be right. Dr John Baumgardner thinks that the earth was in even more upheaval than previously thought.

Your last comment is hard to understand. Einstein explicitly said that his theories were a deduction of the equations of one of his scientific heroes, the creationist James Clerk Maxwell—on electromagnetism.
Peter V.
I think it would be useful (wise? fair?) to expand a bit on the statement "and radioactive decay can’t provide the heat over billions of years either." Planetary scientists do come up with simulations (modeling) of the compositional (differentiation into core, mantle and tiny crust, or partial differentiation) and thermal evolution of Ceres, such as: Neveu, M., and S. J. Desch (2015), Geochemistry, thermal evolution, and cryovolcanism on Ceres with a muddy ice mantle, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 10,197–10,206, doi:10.1002/2015GL066375 , [link deleted per feedback rules] (and references therein). What is important is the explanation in which assumptions these simulations become speculative and unwarranted. But I understand that this might make the article too technical. All in all, when reconstructing the history of any celestial body, or the solar system as a whole, or the universe as such, it is always based on unprovable presuppositions that are simply assumed (taken by faith). And this does not only go for the objects that appear young, but equally for those appearing old. After all the truth about origins cannot be gained by science, this cognition is dependent on absolutely true (God's) revelation.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.