Scientific Evidence for a young Solar System with Dr. Doug Walker

Okay, so here we go. I am Terry Cameraselle, and I'm here on behalf of Creation Fellowship Santee. We're a group of friends who love to learn about our Creator God and believe that the Bible, when read properly, rules out the possibility of long ages.

After 10 years of meeting in person at the Creation and History Museum in Santee, California, last week, we welcomed our 100th unique CFS Virtually There speaker. You can find four and a half years' worth of our Virtually There archives by visiting tinyurl .com forward slash CFS archives.

That's C like creation, F like fellowship, S like Santee in the word archives. Dr. Douglas Walker is an engineer and researcher. He has studied multiple scientific disciplines, but most recently, he has obtained a Ph .D. in astronomy with studies at both James Cook University and the University of Canterbury.

Some of our members met Doug on their recent Creation trip to South Africa. What a treat to have this Ph .D. in astronomy along with them on that trip. He brought his Seastar smart telescope, and some of our members were able to see the Southern Cross for the first time.

So tonight, we're happy to have him give us a tour of our solar system.

What Science Is and Why Evidence Matters

OK, thank you, Terry. First of all, I just want to say thank you for inviting me to speak here tonight. I very much appreciate that. I hope everybody gets some lots of useful information out of what I'm getting ready to talk about.

And just a little bit about me. I think, you know, as I'm becoming elder now, this is kind of the ministry and the latter part of my life is to try to bring the truth and news of God's creation to not only Christians, but to all people that would benefit from it.

OK, so I'm going to share my screen here. Hopefully I get the right one. Screen two, isn't it? PowerPoint slide. Here we go. Yeah. Everybody see that? Yes. No. Oh, yes. OK. Yeah. I got my doctorate degree kind of later in life, you know, by training and, you know, career wise.

I was basically an engineer, research engineer. I worked for NASA out of college, done the space shuttle program in Houston for a while. Want to do more research related stuff. So I worked with the University of Texas system there in Austin for a while before eventually coming out here to Phoenix.

I'm working for Lockheed Martin, where I retired from about 10 years ago now. So. OK, so let's talk about evidence for a young solar system. OK, so here's what I'm going to go over here tonight. And we'll try to I don't mind going to like go through every slide in detail because we could like take a long time to do this.

Right. So I'm just going to kind of give you a brief introduction to this area. And I'm trying to be careful to make sure I reference everything to scientific references or some kind of link or something so you can look up.

Right. Because I know, you know, some of this information gets attacked and we'll talk about, you know, the worldly approach to how we came about here a little bit, a little bit later here. So. So, but first of all, I want to start off like just laying some basic foundation, like what is science.

Right. So hold some definitions out of the, you know, these different references here. You know, Oxford language basically says you're trying to understand the behavior of the physical and natural world.

And then I voted through observation, experimentation and the testing of theories. OK, so that's very important. So everybody, you know, the secular world likes to talk about. We're not going to talk about evolution tonight, but, you know, they like to talk evolution stuff.

Is it being a fact and stuff? Well, you know, it doesn't really have any observation. You can't experiment on it and you can't test a theory about it. Right. So it's really, you know, not really science, you know.

So other ones that basically, you know, Webster just says obtained and test through the scientific method. You know, the scientific method basically says you have to have, you know, repeatable results from experimental stuff you do.

Right. So. Science council, systematic methodology based on evidence last from botanica observations and systematic experimentation. So all the common theme through here is that you need evidence. Right.

So science is based on taking evidence that it can see that it can repeat. And so that's how they come up with these natural physical laws. OK, so laws are different than scientific theories. And so I teach some introductory astronomy courses from time to time and I try to make sure at the first part of the course.

Right. I don't ever talk about, you know, like all evolution's bunk and all that. I don't really go into that. But basically, I tell them like, you know, there's a difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory need to understand the differences.

So I try to get them to think about that's what my approach is. So so here's a scientific theory. Right. You know, a theory is well-sustained explanation aspect of natural world based on hypothesis and then some facts that support that.

Right. So theory of gravitation, we can repeat that in the laboratory. Right. So we you know, we actually the law of gravitation. Right. You know, so, you know, law of like, you know, speed of light, electromagnetism, thermodynamics and such.

So those are actually physical laws that we can repeat. So I'm trying to make sure, you know, that you understand the difference between a theory and a physical law. Right. So a lot of this stuff is based on theories, which we're going to talk about.

We're going to see all the problems with some of the theories that they have on the solar system. OK, so the evolutionist position is that, OK, this universe is 13. I've seen 13 .5, whatever billion years old.

Right. So I found this link here, National Center for Science Education. So that sounds so official. Right. And, you know, supposedly has all this evidence. Right. National Center for Science Education.

Right. So that's their position. Right. Evolutionist position. We're like billions and billions of years old. Right. Well, then the creationist position is that, no, God created the universe exactly like he stated in Genesis.

OK. And then I'll talk about later about really some really good references online for creation. You guys probably know this stuff. Right. But, you know, you know, creationist position is that, no, you know, God's word is true.

We need to believe God's word. And he said he created in six days. And that's what happened. I've been a Christian since I was 18, I guess, right. My freshman year in college, you know, really became a true Christian at that point.

I've been in church ever since I was a little kid. My parents were in church all the time. And but, you know, for the longest time, I never thought about, well, you know, you know, maybe God created. Yeah.

You know, God created millions of years, took to create the universe. Who am I to tell God how he created anything? Right. You know, that's his business. Right. So I never really differentiated between that.

So just maybe, you know, it wasn't that many years ago. Actually, it was when I was in New Zealand. I was working on my Ph .D. and I started watching David Reeves show Creation in the 21st Century. And at that point, I started thinking about, hmm, maybe, you know, maybe all this evolution stuff is really bunk.

And so that's what kind of put me on the path to the position I'm in today. So, OK, stellar formation theories. Right. So first, let's talk about the sun, because that's the center of the solar system.

We'll go into the solar system. So here's theories I pulled out of like here's a NASA website right there. Right. You want this link and go to it. Right. You know, they're saying, how is a star actually formed?

Right. So general theory, you know, if you go from upper left to lower right, you know, you get this big, huge gas cloud sitting out there somewhere in space. Right. You know, and gas starts due to the gravitational attraction of the gas together.

It starts, you know, condensing down to a smaller ball. It condenses, condenses, condenses until it gets small enough. And of course, the pressure builds up. You know, there's the chemical, you know, chemistry laws like, you know, I can't think off the top of my head now, but as you increase the, decrease the volume, the temperature goes up, the pressure goes up.

So it decreases to a point to where, you know, the pressure and temperature is so high, you get nuclear fusion out of the central area of the star and then it blows away the rest of the gas. You have the solar system.

Right. That's their theory. Right. So, you know, you might have seen some of these photos here. This is called the Pillars of Creation. This is actually a nebula out in the great constellation Orion. It's now becoming a winter constellation.

We actually saw that. You can see that down in the South Africa, but it's early in the morning. So I know I pointed out to a couple of folks down there. I don't think Robin and I got to you guys about it, but point to a couple of folks.

So this is the area inside Orion that they talked about. Oh, this is where all the stars are forming. Right. You know, so and so, you know, here's more, you know, photos of that. Right. So these are all credited back, you know, if you go back to the NASA site there.

This is the institute that runs the Hubble Space Telescope. You know, so there is invisible to rights and infrared. And now with James Webb Telescope out there, we've got to get more detailed infrared imagery and stuff.

Right. And we should give you probably give another talk later on just how James Webb has now thrown some monkey ranches into the evolutionist theory about the universe itself. So I think it's kind of interesting.

Right. So anyway, so this is where they think all these stars are being formed out there. Right. And this is a snapshot of a textbook that I'm actually using as a free online textbook. I'm actually using some inductory astronomy courses.

Right. So see the title up there. I mean, evidences of new solar systems. Right. So there's a figure, you know, planetary nurses, nurseries, Hubble Space Telescope sections, Orion Nebula, relatively close by, whatever.

Right. You know, so each image shows an embedded certain stellar disk orbiting a very young star. Right. So they're saying, oh, this is evidence that stars are being created. Right. But they don't actually say that any one of these is actually they're seeing a star being created.

So you can take the opposite and say, well, you know what, it looks like a big gas cloud we had back up here. Right. And there's a bunch of stars in the gas cloud is showing to the glass, the gas. Right.

I don't see any stars actually being formed. You know. Of course, they talk about, you know, the birth of the star. Here's this textbook up in the upper right up over there. So this is a section out of one of the paragraphs in the textbook.

And I bolded the red. Right. So, you know, so these are now quotes. So if you go into a lot of these textbooks and stuff, they talk about these theories. But then every once in a while, they'll make, you know, they actually, you know, come clean and basically say, well, we really don't understand how this happens.

Right. So see, they're saying, even though all the regions such as Orion, which you just looked at, gives us clues about how the star formation begins. The subsequent stages are still shrouded in mystery.

Right. So they're still in mystery. You know, they don't understand all that. So. I go down here saying, you know, kind of talk about the process again. That's shrouded in terrors of the clouds, you know, cannot be observed with visible light, you know, blah, blah, blah.

So anyway, they and the point I'm trying to make is like, you'll see and you'll hear in the media, you'll read in textbooks that these things are facts. And when you get down and start looking at a pill, the onion off of them, they really kind of confess, well, we really don't know what that happens.

So what's some of the problems with the theories of the origins of the stars is that, you know, again, for each star, the cloud must be dense enough to collapse and compress the interior to it gets hot and dense enough for nuclear fusion to occur.

But there's a problem with that. There's this thing. Actually, when you get gas to compress, it actually gets to a point where it wants to repel all the atoms in the gas cloud, not to keep condensing.

And this thing called this genes instability, which there's the reference to it. I've got a page of references further down line. So but it's a mathematical calculation which shows how massive a cloud must be so that gravity can overcome the intensity of the gas to expand and then actually condense into one of these stars.

Right. But if you run calculations, then say, you know, according to the Big Bang, the time the first stars were formed, a temperature was so high that required the genes mass would be about one hundred thousand suns.

Right. The mass. So, you know, suns, one mass, right. You take one hundred thousand of those. And that's about the same mass as what they call a globular cluster, which is a big cluster of stars together.

Right. And so they're just saying basically because of that, no star can be formed in this way. And then I got this quote down here from this guy from the Harvard Center for Astrophysics saying, see, the truth is that we don't understand star formation at the fundamental level.

Right. So there again, you'll read in textbooks, you know, you go take a not my class, you go take some other introductory astronomy class, a community college or a university level, whatever. They just quote these things as fact.

Right. So that's the problems with the sun. We're going to talk a little bit more about that later. So let's now go into the solar system. So, you know, through a couple of charts in here, this upper left one here.

I mean, you've probably seen that when you were a kid in elementary school, whatever the solar system, nine planets when I was a little kid, we had nine planets. Pluto was a planet. Right. They demoted Pluto.

What was that? 2003 or something like that. There's a story behind that. They kind of did that in an underhanded way. You know, we'll keep politics out of this. Right. So so so that's kind of a, you know, a generic what all the planets are.

Upper right there is more of a scale type of what we think the solar system looks like. You know, the inner planets there, I mean, I guess are astronomical units. Right. So Earth is that one astronomical unit is a distance from average distance from the Earth, the sun.

So it's called an AU. So there's Earth at one. Saturn's out there at 10. So that means it's like 10 times the distance from the sun is the Earth. And then you get the edge of the solar system, a heliosphere, about 100 AU.

And then they have this thing out here called the Oort Cloud. I'm going to come back to that a little bit later. Right. You know, it looks like a million AU to these nearby stars. Right. And then lower right down here is actually references to the size of different planets.

You see how big the sun is. Right. You know, Jupiter's our largest planet in the solar system. And it's actually up to visible now. Right. So now, you know, if you've ever been out, if you've never gone out to a star party, I encourage you to do that and look to a telescope and see these planets for yourself, because you can see all the pictures all the time you want.

But when you actually look to a telescope, you see Saturn hanging there in space with the rings around. It's like really cool. Right. So these are the relative sizes. You see how small Pluto is. Right.

So that's why I got the melody. Right. OK. So theories of solar system. Right. So, again, accepted theories right from the secular world says that the Earth and solar system formed about four point six billion years ago.

You know, the concept is all the objects in the solar system, which, you know, attach to the sun had to be made from the same materials as nebulous. Right. So we talked a little bit earlier about, you know, a few slides back on this nebulous cloud condenses down, forms a sun.

Well, now that gaseous cloud, you get all the planets have a solar system. How this goes. Right. There's a lot of problems with this. Right. Chemical problems, heat problems, dynamic problems. We're going to look at some of this.

Right. And then I bought the bomb. I said, well, you know, again, the Bible implies Earth is only several thousand years old. You know, that's our genesis and also an exodus and everything in the universe was created in God's six day creation.

And so, you know, that's the actual days we have now. Not, you know, not each day was like, oh, well, it was like, you know, a million years because they measured days. No, no, no. It's just a day. Right.

Give it up. So there's kind of like five different basic theories of solar system formation. And we'll briefly go through each of those and I'm going to show you the problems with them. So they got the accretion theory, protoplanet theory, modern Laplacian theory, capture theory, modern nebula theory.

And, you know, this is coming from the Royal Museums of Greenwich over in England. There's the link to that. So the accretion theory basically says, you know, the sun passes through this dense interstellar cloud and emerges by a dusty, gaseous envelope.

You know, there's a problem with that. How do you get the how do you get the planets to form? How do you get the planets to start rotating around the sun? Right. So they don't have an answer to that. So a lot of times with these theories, if they can't make it work in the current model, they'll come up with something.

They call it a rescue device. Right. Some, you know, a lot of times it's like with the plants and stuff like, oh, an asteroid came in and hit, you know, Neptune and turned its rotation on its side or whatever.

Ryan's like, well, what evidence do you have? The planet was hit by an asteroid. Well, we don't see any, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. So that was the accretion theory. The protoplanet theory basically says, you know, dense clouds, kind of what we talked about before, dense cloud, it starts spinning.

The central mass becomes the protosun. And then the, you know, you've got the rotation. So you kind of have like a pizza kind of flat disk around the sun and they form into the planets. OK. OK. So that's kind of a theory.

Now, there's some problems with that. Right. So one of the problems is small blobs should have a higher rotation and seeing the planets of the solar system. Right. So the theory says you should have this higher rotation.

We look at the rotation of the planets. Evidence doesn't fit the theory. Right. So that's why I went back at first and talk about evidence. Right. Needs to fit and make a valid theory. You have evidence supporting that.

Right. So of all these theories, they have the evidence that basically doesn't support it. So down the bottom back here, right. Reference out this UK reference. However, it's not clear how the plants came to be confined to a plane or why the rotations are on the same sense.

OK. So they can't figure that one out. Right. It's modern Laplacian theory. This goes back actually to this modern. It goes back to this French mathematician Laplace. And he has other Laplace equations that I've studied somewhere back in time that I've forgotten about.

That all the suns form from this rotating nebula. It's cool and collapse. Right. Now, there's a problem with this one. Right. The slow spin of the sun cannot be explained. Right. OK. So if this really occurred because they run these computer models all this, you know, so you have, you know, these professors sitting in university somewhere and they have their graduate students who basically are, you know, next to slave labor because they pay them nothing.

Right. They're trying to get their degrees. And so, you know, having, you know, you know, develop all these computer models, they run all these models and they're trying to figure out, oh, they want this good, you know, solid model of how a solution can form.

And they come up with all these problems. So this one has a slow spin of sun. You can't explain that. Right. Like, OK, that's a problem with that guy. Right. There's another one called this capture of theory.

Right. So basically it's saying, well, you know, here in the rights is kind of a little diagram of that. Right. So you have a rogue star. Right. Passes close to the sun. And they don't talk about how these other rogue stars form.

Right. Like, oh, they're just there. Right. But it passes close to the sun. So the sun's already formed. Right. But didn't have any planets around. So we're talking about how the solar system. So because of the gravitational attraction between this rogue star and say their sun there in yellow, it pulls out part of the gaseous part of the sun.

Right. And so the sun's rotating. You're also there. You know that, you know, all those gaseous pieces break up and they start becoming the solar system. Right. So the sun interacts with a nearby photo star, dragging from it away.

Roll low rotation to see the speed of the sun is explained. OK. The terrestrial planets are explained by collisions. OK. And then the giant plants or satellites are explained as condensations are drawn on the filament.

OK. So like, OK, we can try to explain that stuff. Right. But there's still a lot of problems with that. That's a capture theory. Right. Modern nebular theory. There's this is, I think, the most one is accepted nowadays in the secular world.

Right. Plants originate a cloud form that collapses again to give us a sun density. The disk had to be sufficient to allow the formation of planets. My clock is striking in the background. Hope that doesn't bother you.

Formation of planets and yet be thin enough for the residual matter not to be blown away the sun as the energy output increased. OK. So it's a variation on the gaseous dust cloud and such. OK. So they're saying they're basically, you know, again, the central condensation becomes a sun.

You have these dust grains that are drug out of the gas cloud. They eventually condense to become the planet. So and after a while, you know, the core rises. The slowly rotating core becomes the sun. The planets form the faster rotating cloud.

OK. So. So that's that's the modern nebular theory. So basically what I'm saying, you know, conclusion wise for all these different theories. Right. So there's been many attempts to develop these theories for the origin of the solar system.

And so but there's problems of all of them. OK. And so here's another quote. Right. And I should have referenced this quote. I need to go back, put the reference to this. So. So, you know, so it's coming out one of those references that we do believe, however, that we understand the overall mechanism.

OK. And then they're saying the sun and planets form from a contraction part. OK. Repeat a lot of stuff. So that's a basic theories of the solar system. OK. So here's some just some diagrams basically kind of saying the same things.

Right. Go from upper left there. This is the nebula hypothesis theory there. Right. You get the sun, you get rotating portions, become the planets and stuff. And so they get all this really detail. Right.

They got all this stuff really detailed. Kind of like, you know, if you go look at evolution, you know, the evolution of man. They got all these really detailed drawings and stuff about how man evolved.

And, you know, each stage, you know, he looks more like a man than a monkey and all this stuff. Right. They can really really rabbit. Right. Elaborate. Because the same thing goes on here. Right. And so these theories are just pushed relentlessly.

Why Secular Models of Star and Solar System Formation Fail

OK. So on the left over here, this is a textbook I found. This is a guy, a professor at the University of Oregon. You know, he teaches astronomy. He's an observational astronomer. Right. So if you go look at his stuff online, it's all evolution.

It's just what it is. You know, Neil deGrasse Tyson is a guy that's, you know, it's kind of taken up from Carl Sagan there on the right. You're probably familiar with Carl Sagan. You know, evolution is right.

Oh, yeah. I remember reading one time about Carl Sagan back when I was a kid and he was alive. He made some statement. There was some interview with him. He made some statement. He says, you know, there's no evidence that I've seen that points to a creator.

When I read that, I'm like, well, that's all the evidence I see does point to a creator. How can you come up with that opposite conclusion? But it goes back to your viewpoint. Right. So starting with a secular viewpoint, there is no God.

Everything here is natural. So we got to explain everything we see in the natural realm. Right. So that's what they spend their lives, their whole careers, all their energies trying to do, which is sad because, you know, Satan's very good at his lies.

Right. So he's deceived all these people into believing there's not a God, you know, and, you know, keeps deceiving them for their whole life. But, you know, the Bible also says, if you seek me, you will find me, says the Lord.

So they just never really truly seeking. Right. Another section on introductory astronomy textbook. You know, so here, you know, origin of the solar system. Right. So here's the objectives of this section.

Explain the importance of collision in the formation of solar system. So that's one of the main rescuing devices I love to use is this collision in the solar system. All right. Problems with the current theories.

Right. Suns. So I go through a bunch of these things. Right. Sun's actual tilt, actual tilt. If the sun and planets were formed by this collapsing nebula, then the sun should be spinning in the same plane.

OK. Right. However, this axis is tilt a little over 70 degrees away from the ecliptic. So the ecliptic is is a plane in the sky. It's where all the planets basically rotate around the sun. And so you go outside and look at the night sky.

There's a certain it's called ecliptic in the night sky, where all the planets are going to appear in the night sky. So you'll never see the planets around the North Pole because that's not where the plane of the ecliptic is.

So the sun's axis is tilted like seven degrees away from the ecliptic. Right. Jupiter's orbital plane is most of the planetary mass and angular momentum outside of the sun. So it's inclined about one point three degrees from the ecliptic.

So that's still leaving about a six percent difference. Right. So, you know, these tilt of the planets are usually not explained by invoking collisions or usually explain. I'm sorry. Usually explained by invoking collisions.

But this would not apply to the sun. So, again, you know, they want to explain a lot of these anomalies. They see in a solar system by they have some rogue asteroid or something flying to the solar system, hits one of the planets, knocks it off its axis or whatever.

And so they explain it like that. OK, so more problems with these current theories, you know, law of conservation of angular momentum. Just, you know, as a skater pulls in their arm, momentum equals mass times velocity times distance.

You know, you know, they spin faster. Right. So in the formation of a sun, the same effect would have occurred. Right. Contraction to form the center form of the sun. And this would cause the sun to spin very rapidly.

But our sun spins slowly while the planets move rapidly around the sun. So the sun has over 99 percent of the mass of the solar system, but it has only two percent of the angular momentum. OK, so there's a problem there.

Right. So this pattern is directly opposite the pattern predicted for this nebula hypothesis. Right. We just talked about that. Right. So they try to solve this problem. A well-known solar system scientist, Dr. Stuart Ross Taylor, which I don't really know, admitted when discussing the angular momentum problem, that a predictive theory of nebula evolution is still lacking.

See, again, you know, you catch him off for a coffee or something when they're not. Nobody's looking. They're like, yeah, we really don't understand all this stuff. Right. They admit it. Problems with rocky planets.

So, again, all the evolutionists, astronomers believe the rocky plants arose from a collision of dust particles. OK, so you got that disk around the sun and it's collapsing down. It's forming the planets.

Right. So out of that disk of gas and stuff, you get like things collect together, become actually dust particles and they start sticking together. And, you know, as you get more masses together, they start getting heating up and they melting and form larger blobs of molten rock and stuff like.

So all these blobs together start to form larger and larger to form all the inner planets, which are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars. However, if you look like research, right, so we're back to the labs and the guys and the graduate students shown to rocks would not melt.

OK, but mostly would simply zoom past each other, collide and recall like, you know, snooker balls off of a table. Right. OK, so that's the problems with the rocky plants in the inner solar system. Here's some problems with the gas giants.

Right. So the solar system is broken up into kind of two parts. Again, the inner solar system has these rocky planets. Right. We just got to naming those all the way up to Mars. And then you have a gap between Mars and Jupiter.

And you have asteroid belt out there, which I think was a failed planet to be formed or whatever. They have the gas giants in the outer solar system, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. And you go further out and you have a little bit of Pluto floating around out there.

So. So the gas giants. So we're just talking about Jupiter and Saturn here are far and far enough away from the sun that the ice could condense. Right. So they're mainly icy type worlds. So you have to have strong enough gravity to suck that gas in.

But Jupiter's core turns out to be too small to do this. OK. And they're running simulations, you know, to try to figure out what's going on there. Simulations are showing that the solar nebula would dissipate before the core had a chance to grow big enough.

So it's unstable. So when then the other planets out to Uranus and Neptune, they're even more acute than for Jupiter. And so, again, you know, graduate students running computer simulations have never been able to explain plants as big as the two giants forming that far out from the sun.

The problem with their current theory, retrograde motion is another current theory, right? Nebula hypothesis predicts all the nebulas spiral inward and they're rotating in the same same direction. Venus rotates in the opposite direction.

It's called retrograde rotation. Like, well, how did that happen? Right. And again, so the way they try to get around that. Is that they have like an asteroid flying through or some rocky planet or something flying to the so some hits, hits Venus and knocks its rotation in the opposite direction.

We've also discovered a comet with a retrograde orbit. And so, again, it's everything formed out of this original gas cloud that shouldn't be in a retrograde orbit. Right. And so here's a statement from one secular article and said that, you know, this all is inconsistent view that plants were formed by, again, the condensation of dust from a disk surrounding a newly formed star.

OK, more problem. We keep going. Right. Methane is missing in some of the in some of the planets. Right. So Titan's a moon of Saturn. Titan is a thick atmosphere made of nitrogen and a bunch of other gases there.

So they sent out this space probe out to Saturn some years back, Cassini mission, and actually probe landed on the surface. And they found this mystery that scientists trying to model Titan's atmosphere calculate should contain no methane.

OK, but it should have been used up tens of million years ago. Right. So the solar system is actually four point five billion years ago. All the methane should be gone. But they find methane there. Right.

How did that happen? The young sun was too cool. Here's a problem with the sun and back. Right. It's called the faint earth sun paradox. You know, again, you know, evolution believe, you know, cells formed from chemical or three point eight billion years ago.

At that time, according to their computer models, right, the sun's life cycle has given off about 30 percent less light energy than it does today. You know, it's just both eight and nine supposed to be references there.

And there would have been much cooler. So, you know, so Earth is probably like look like a ball of ice. Right. So basically life couldn't survive on it. So how did life evolve on a ball of ice? So sun was too cool.

Io, a moon of Jupiter, is too hot. So Jupiter, and then you can see there on the right, this is taken from one of the space probes is showing a volcanic activity on the planet Io. This is one of the first things discovered like in the late 70s there.

So Io has all the software across the surface, a lot of volcanic activity. Scientists before they got the space probes out there, they thought it would be volcanic. However, it's a lot hotter than what they anticipated.

Right. Some of that's explained by the orbit of Io around Jupiter, because Jupiter is so large a mass, it actually affects the orbital characteristics of it. Tidal forces squeeze and makes it hotter. But it's a lot hotter than what they can explain by that.

Uranus is another problem, right? Orientation of Uranus's magnetic field is unusual. Most of the magnetic fields are probably aligned with the rotational axis, not with Uranus. It's offset from the rotation axis by like 60 degrees.

OK, so how did that happen? Right. And this little insect on the right here is Dr. Russell Humphreys, and now he's with Creation Ministries International. And he's still alive. He was a scientist at one of the national labs here.

Maybe it was Los Alamos. I'm not sure. But he's a creation scientist. And so before they sent the Voyager spacecraft, this is like in the 80s, past Jupiter and Saturn, before it got to Uranus, he made a prediction.

So, you know, the computer models are saying, oh, Uranus, you know, has this type of magnetic field. Right. So he went back to the Bible and said, well, you know, if actually God created the solar system from water, what would the magnetic field look like?

Right. So in 84, he made his prediction on the magnetic field of Uranus based on the amount of magnetic decay that would have happened on a planet in 6000 years. OK, so this is where the Voyager spacecraft got there.