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

Okay, so here we go. I am Terry Camerasell 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

PhD 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

PhD 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.

Okay, thank you, Terry. I first of all 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 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.

Okay, 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. Okay. So anyway, 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, worked for NASA out of college, done the space shuttle program in Houston for a while.

Wanted 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 and working for Lockheed Martin, where I retired from about 10 years ago now.

So, okay. So let's talk about evidence for a young solar system.

Okay. 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 later here.

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.

Okay. So that's very important. So everybody, you know, the secular world likes to talk about, we're not going to come up evolution tonight, but you know, they like to evolution stuff as it being a fact and stuff.

Well, you know, it doesn't really have any observation. You can't experiment on it and he 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 experiments and stuff you do.

Right. So a 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. Okay. 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, oh, 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 I, you know, that you understand the difference between a theory and a physical law.

Right. So a lot of 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 already know this stuff. Right. But, 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 it 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, oh, 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.

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're going to 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, when gas starts due to the gravitational attraction of the gas together, it starts, you know, condensing down to a smaller ball.

It condenses, condenses, it 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 of top 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 Rob 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 the institute that runs the

Hubble Space Telescope. You know, so there is invisible to right and infrared. And now with James Webb Telescope out there, we get to get more detailed infrared imagery and stuff.

Right. And we should give another talk later on just how

James Webb has now thrown some monkey ranches into 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.

It's a free online textbook. I'm actually using some inductory astronomy courses. Right. So see the title up there.

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, 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 that's 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 no. 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 talked about the process again, but 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 out and start looking at, peel the onion off of them, they really kind of confess, well, we really don't know what happens here.

So what's some of the problems with theories of the origins of stars is that, you know, again, for each star, the cloud must be dense enough to collapse and compress the interior until 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 Jeans 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 tendency 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 Big Bang, the time the first stars were formed, the temperature was so high that required the

Jeans mass would be about 100 ,000 suns, right? The mass. So, you know, sun's one mass, right?

You take 100 ,000 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, but go take some other introductory astronomy class at community college or university level or whatever.

They just quote these things as fact. All 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're 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 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, these,

I guess, are astronomical units, right? So Earth is at one. An astronomical unit is a distance from, average distance from the

Earth to 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 as the Earth.

And then you get the edge of the solar system, a heliosphere, about 100 AUs. And then they have this thing out here called the

Oort Cloud. We'll come back to that a little bit later, right? You know, it looks like a million AUs to these nearby stars, right?

And then lower right down here is actually references to the size of different planets, right? 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, and it's like really cool, right?

So these are the relative sizes, and you see how small Pluto is, right? So that's why I got the melody, right?

Okay, so theories of solar system, right? So again, accepted theories, right, from the, you know, secular world says that Earth and solar system formed about 4 .6

billion years ago. You know, now 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 with this nebulous cloud condenses down, forms the sun.

Well, now that gaseous cloud, you get all the planets of the 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 at the bottom,

I said, well, you know, again, the Bible implies Earth is only several thousand years old. You know, that's

Genesis and also in Exodus and everything in the universe was created in God's six day creation week.

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. Then I'm going to show you the problems with them. So they got the accretion theory, protoplanet theory, modern

Laplacian theory, capture theory, modern nebulous theory. And, you know, this is coming from the

Royal Museum of Greenwich over in England. There's the link to that. So the accretion theory basically says 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 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

Neptune and turned its rotation on its side or whatever. Right. It'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 a, like a pizza kind of flat disc around the sun and they form into the planets.

Okay. Okay. So that's kind of the theory. Now there's some problems with that. Right. So one of the problems with small blobs should have a higher rotation than 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 need to have the evidence supporting that. Right. So all these theories, they have the evidence that basically doesn't support it.

So down at the bottom back here, right? Reference out this UK reference. However, it's not clear how the planets came to be confined to a plane or why the rotations are on the same sense.

So, okay. So they can't figure that one out. Right. This modern Laplacian theory, this goes back actually, it says it's modern, but 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 formed from this rotating nebula, it's cooled and collapsed. Right. Now there's a problem with this one.

Right. The slow spin of the sun cannot be explained. Right. Okay. So if this really occurred, because they run these computer models and all this, you know, so you have, you know, these professors setting 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 the solar system formed.

And they come up with all these problems. So this one has a slow spin of the sun, you can't explain that. Right. Like, okay, 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 it doesn'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. Okay.

The terrestrial planets are explained by collisions. Okay. And then the giant plants or satellites are explained condensations have grown on the filament.

Okay. So they like, okay, 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 that's accepted nowadays, you know, in the secular world.

Right. Plants originally in a cloud form that collapses again to give us a sun.

Density of 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. And formation of plants and yet be thin enough for the residual matter not to be blown away the sun as the energy output increased.

Okay. So it's a variation on the gaseous dust cloud and such.

Okay. 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 to slowly rotating core becomes the sun and planets form the faster rotating cloud.

Okay. 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. Okay. And so here's another quote. Right. And I should have referenced this quote.

I need to go back with the reference to this. So. So we said, you know, so it's coming out one of those references that we do believe, however, that we understand the overall mechanism.

Okay. And then they're saying the sun and plants form from a contraction part.

Okay. Repeat a lot of stuff. So that's the basic theories of the solar system. Okay. So here's just some diagrams basically kind of saying the same things.

Right. We 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 read it.

Right. Elaborate because the same thing goes on here. Right. And so these theories are just pushed relentlessly.

Okay. 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 Thow 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 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.

You know, 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 we're starting with a secular viewpoint.

There is no God. Everything here is natural. So we got to explain everything we see in a 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 they 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 sites. 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. All right. However, this axis is tilt a little over 70 degrees away from the ecliptic.

So the ecliptic is a plane in the sky. And 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, you know, 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 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 evoking 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 ninety nine 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 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're melting and form larger blobs of molten rock and stuff.

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, right, 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 the 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 the gas giants, so we're just talking about Jupiter and Saturn here, 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 and then the other planets out there, 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 planets 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 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.

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, if everything formed out of this original gas cloud, that shouldn't be in a retrograde problem orbit, right?

And so here's a statement from one secular article and said that's in, you know, this whole it's inconsistent to view that plants were formed by, again, the condensation of dust from a disk surrounding a newly formed star.

OK, more problems. 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 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 millions of 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? 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 the earth 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 was 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. So that's explained by the orbit of Io around Jupiter, because Jupiter 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. The orientation of Uranus's magnetic field is unusual. Most of the magnetic fields are properly 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 incident 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 it actually got created in 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 magnetic decay that would have happened on a planet in 6000 years.

OK, so this is before the Voyager spacecraft got there. When Voyager 2 got there, it confirmed his prediction and all the scientists' predictions were wrong.

OK, now you don't hear anything about that in the textbooks. Right. This creation scientist made a correct prediction on the magnetic field strength of Uranus right before this probe got there.

This is one of my favorite ones here is problems with comets, short -period comets.

This is one, you know, how do you pronounce that name? You know, it just came into, just left the inner part of the solar system where you could see it.

Right. And these are time -lapse, I didn't take these photos of the comet. Some of these were taken around here in the

Phoenix area, I believe. So very pretty comets, right. Comets have these long tails and stuff.

Right. The problem with comets is that if you have the solar system, again, 4 .5

billion years old, you shouldn't have any comets. Right. Because comets come in, circle around the sun.

And so this one showing you right here in the lower right is another comet. Right. And so that tail is actually part of the comet being burned off by the solar wind of the sun.

So every time a comet comes around the sun, it loses part of its mass because the sun burns it off.

Okay. So, you know, after so many orbits of a comet coming around the sun, it's burned away.

It's gone. Right. And so if the solar system is 4 .5 billion years ago, we shouldn't see any comets because they should be gone.

Well, obviously we see them. Okay. So what else is going on? Right. Well, if we go back to that diagram at the beginning where it talks about, you know,

I showed you the solar system. It had that orb cloud out there. That's a hypothetical, I think

I hear something here. That's a hypothetical cloud on the outer, outside of the solar system that they made up by some guy back in the 50s.

He says, oh, this is where all these comets are. And they're just sitting out there from the creation of the solar system or the evolution of the solar system.

Every once in a while, a star passing by or something perturbs sends them on a path around the sun and we see it.

Right. And this is the source of all these comets. Well, I interviewed for a teaching position here in Phoenix when

I got back from New Zealand, you know, and they had me do a little blurb or whatever to see if my teaching style. And I took this example, right.

And I said, well, okay, I'm telling the class, what observational evidence do we have of the orb cloud?

It's like nothing, zero, niche. Right. We have no observational evidence.

So there's something there to go back to the scientific theory, right? We have no evidence of all. But if you go back and read again, textbooks, they make and state a fact like, oh, well, all these comments come from the orb cloud.

Well, there is no orb cloud out there. So all these problems disappear when we basically say, you know what?

God created the whole universe 6 ,000 years ago, created the sun, the properties suited to our needs exactly like we needed.

Right. Very stable source of energy for us and all life on Earth. Okay. So again, it's your perspective of how you're looking at how things came about.

You know, evolutionists look at through the eyes of their, you know, it's called the worldview, right? Glasses.

I've seen some other talks and they look at the worldview through these glasses of there is no

God, everything has to be explained by naturalistic, you know, mechanisms and such.

And, you know, so they, you know, they work really hard and they're really smart people, right?

I'm not saying they're not. They're very, very smart people, but they've been deceived. And so they spend all this time and energy working on all these models, trying to explain like how the solar system came about, trying to explain

Venus's, you know, rotation, reversal, retrograde rotation, trying to explain the tilt on the unit, the axis of Uranus, right?

And all this, and you know, the sun and all that, and they just can't explain it with their computer model.

So here's some creation websites.

I put these in here. You probably already familiar with some of these answers in Genesis, you know, that's Ken Ham's up in Ohio, whatever it is, right?

So they have a whole section there and I've taken all this material I've taken is from these sources.

So I probably could be properly new back and I do reference all these sources, but I need to credit all these sources too.

So Answers in Genesis is one, Institute for Creation Research, ICR is another good research center.

They're based out of Dallas. There's Answers in Genesis again, Comet, so evidence for a young universe.

Okay. And then Creation Ministries International, which is,

I think it started out in Australia. Now, you know, there's a, there's a US counterpart here, but that's a, that's a link to that there.

So, you know, they have all kinds of references on not just a solar system, but you know,

Big Bang Theory, other space activities, evolution, all this good stuff. Here's another good website here.

This guy, Spike Parsons, we were thinking about, we're trying to, you know, get him to come and speak at the

February Astronomy Day that David's going to have here in February, but he said he's out of the country. So he has a lot of excellent.

In Israel, he spoke for us before he came on this forum. Ah, excellent. Okay. I've never,

I've heard of all his talks, but I've never met him. So I want to meet him because he has a bunch of great videos that talks about the solar system and stuff, you know, and then he worked for Lockheed Martin at the, in the

Space Command. I, you know, retired from Lockheed Martin and I'm now working for the Space Force.

So we have a lot of things in common. So I'm anxious to meet him. So, so that's a great website there. Here's my other references.

I think they go on for several pages, additional references here. These are Creation, Ministry International websites,

I believe. And that was the last slide and I'm coming down to four seconds. So how about that?

That was pretty good. You did a great job on that timing and that was a great presentation.

I enjoyed that. Let me see. Oh, I'm stopped sharing. Okay. Yes. Yeah. So anybody got questions, comments, discussions, we want to talk about anything or?

So what we'll do, we have time. Oh yeah. We've got lots of time, which is really unusual because the last few speakers have gone over a little bit.

You were just breezing through it. Yeah, I know. I should have said slow down. Robin read me the riot act.

She says, don't you dare run over the time. I said, okay. Well, after the last two weeks, you caught me off guard.

I'm like, oh no, scrambling. So here I am. Okay. So we do have some questions.

Yeah. Go ahead, Robin. I just want to, so what we'll do Doug is we won't, we'll keep recording and take some, we'll have to give you some questions.

I really can speak better than this. I don't know what's with me. So Terry, we'll ask you the questions.

We'll have you answer. And then when we've finished certain amount of questions, then we'll stop recording, stop live stream and, and we'll make it a free for all.

Okay. All right. All right. Since we are still recording and live streaming, if you could all please be sure to keep your cameras off and your microphones muted, that would be really great.

Do I need to do that too, Terry? Oh no, please. You're going to have a hard time answering questions if you're muted,

Doug. Well, did you want my camera off? No, no, no, no, no.

Okay. So here we go with the question. So the first one, if a secularist is insisting that stars from the nebulas, that stars for Robin.

Um, let me go ahead and ask my question. Um, my question. Um, so I belong to an astronomy club and they're all very insistent when we have astronomy night, you know, that there are stars forming in the various nebulas or the star forming reason regions.

And, and they're, you know, they're brainiacs and they just tell us and I, and I get them to admit that nobody's ever seen it, but they keep saying, well, there's baby stars in there that we can't see yet.

What would you say to somebody? Show me the money. Show me the evidence that you've got a star farming.

You can come up with all your theories, you know, but I want to see observational evidence of a star farm until you tell me that it's your theory.

It's not a fact. It's your theory. Great. Thank you. Good job.

So next question, um, wasn't the art cloud first invented?

Well, I think you covered this one, Rob. This is Robbins again. So, so she's asking me if it was invented, invented in 1932.

Uh, was that it in 32? I'm trying to remember. So. Well, I had asked the question before you said 1950s, and then

I couldn't remember, and I could have gone to Google, but I didn't. So somewhere between the thirties and, but it's, it's yeah.

So it might be the thirties. I'm trying to remember now, but it, it, yeah. It's some astronomer came up with, you know, why are we seeing these comments, right?

You know? Oh, it can't be because, you know, again, if the solar system's four and a billion years old, we shouldn't see any.

Well, we see them obviously, right? They're all coming. So how do we explain those? Oh, well, there has to be this art cloud.

It's named after this guy, Ork, right? You know, and you think it was a German astronomer, that Ork, right?

So, um, and it's just a theory, but it's, it's, what gets me is that it's always stated as fact in all the textbooks, in all the lectures you hear, everybody just states, oh, yeah, well, okay.

Show me the observational evidence for the Ork cloud, right? We don't have any. Well, then, okay. How can you say,

I mean, I can say that, you know, there's Santa Claus out there throwing snowballs in, right?

I mean, you know. No, Santa Claus is in the North Pole and we've just never seen him. Well, yeah. You know what I'm saying? Well, that's actually stupid.

I'm like, well, there's just as much evidence for that as there is for your theory, right? You know, so.

That was great. So, unlike that, Brian is now asking, since we have a protective field around our

Earth, is it possible that there could be an Ork cloud field that protects our solar system that God maybe put?

Okay, could be, right? Possible. But we've never seen it.

But we've never seen it, right? See, you know, so there's different kinds of astronomers, right?

There's astrophysicists, which I'm not even, I can't even do that stuff. And, you know, and then there's the theoretical cosmologists, you know, and I've got a photo somewhere of a gal that was down there with me in New Zealand.

She's got this white board with all these equations on them and stuff. I'm like, well, what does this mean, you know? So, they got the cosmologists and they're trying to figure out how the universe came about and all that stuff.

I tell everybody I'm an observational astronomer. I take observational, you know, images of like variable stars and planets or whatever, and then

I base my, you know, I've written, you know, paper stuff based on light curves of stars.

Well, I'm actually looking at the light curve of the star, right? Not some theoretical thing, right? So, I'm an observational astronomer, you know?

So, I have a hard time when people say, well, this, you know, so and so.

I'm like, well, show me the evidence, right? You know, until I see the evidence and, again, it's just your theory and I could probably come up with one, too.

And, you know, why isn't my theory just as good as yours about how, you know,

Santa Claus is throwing comets, snowball comets, off the North Pole? Well, I was thinking about that question that Brian asked.

It's like, God could have used, you know, millions of years to create the Earth, but we know that the

Earth is only 6 ,000 years old, give or take, and we wouldn't need that Oort cloud because we already have comets in motion.

Any plans on bringing an end to the Earth quite quickly or soon coming up here? I don't think we would need the

Oort cloud, but in my opinion, Brian and I am not even astral anything. It's possible, but I'm thinking not.

So, you're right. I mean, if, you know, if God created everything 6 ,000 years ago, there's plenty of comets he created at that time.

We don't need the Oort cloud, right? Because they haven't all burned off yet, you know? I heard some, you know, if you go back to an evolutionist, you know, about man, you know, there's some astronomer out there that's in California.

I forgot his name. I probably wouldn't mention it so I could remember it, but he tried. He's a Christian. I heard him actually talk at a

Christian businessman's fellowship here in Phoenix years ago, and only the

Lord knows a person's heart, right? But he tries to fit in, you know, the solar system and the creation of the of years.

Oh, Ross, Hugh Ross. Hugh Ross. Yeah. So anyway, you know, so, but then

I heard somebody say, well, you know, if man evolved up, if God evolved man up to these humanoids, right?

You'd have all this death and destruction and everything up until the time of Adam. But the

Bible clearly says, you know, when God created everything, it was very good.

He didn't talk about death and destruction before Adam actually sinned, right? So you can't reconcile those two, you know?

Exactly. Okay. Well, Jeff just wants to point out that if the

Oort cloud really exists, the Voyager spacecraft doesn't have a chance. Well, maybe because the

Oort cloud could be very, not very dense, right? You know? So, I mean, it's just like they flew the spacecraft through the asteroid belt in the inner solar system, you know?

So. But wouldn't the Oort cloud have to be really, really big? If there was an

Oort cloud, wouldn't it have to be really, really big to hold all the comets? Yeah.

But it's so far out there. So, you know, it's a huge area. It's a big sphere, right? It's not just in a plane.

They think it's in this big ball around the solar system, you know? Okay. I just find it funny, you know, as like I was trying to, you know, emphasize at first, you know, between what scientific fact and laws and theories, you know?

Scientists, you know. And they have their fairy tales as well. Well, right. And they have their theories, right?

And they're, you know, yeah, their fairy tales about, I mean, they're trying to explain it, right? So, you know, you'll get into their viewpoint, right?

They're trying to explain what I see from a naturalistic viewpoint, right? So, they have all the computer models run like, ah, this computer model won't, you know, solar system can form like that.

Well, our model's not right. We've got to tweak it, you know? Or maybe something ran into Venus, right?

You know? So, they come up with all these, you know. And Parsons does a, you know, does a really good job in his videos about explaining these rescue devices they always come up with to try to, you know, save their theories, right?

Yes. Okay. So, Cheryl is asking about what your position is with Space Force and how you're treated by them as a creationist.

So, right now, I'm working, trying not to work much longer. So, I'm working as a, not a consultant because I work for a defense contractor.

What we're doing is that, you know, we have satellites up in orbit that are looking for missile launches against the

U .S. from China or Russia or whatever. And those satellites have been up there for a while, so they want to replace that system.

So, I'm doing computer modeling and stuff for some replacement of those systems.

The guys I work with are Christians, okay? All except one, I believe. And my project lead is a strong Christian because the other night when

Trump finally was, you know, announced Trump won, he texted me, you know, and he says, I told you he's going to win, right?

You know? So, but, you know, we haven't really talked about it. And, you know,

I guess I don't go around announcing it or whatever, right? I mean, if someone asked me directly, it's like, yes, this is what

I believe, right? Because I had somebody in my weekly church Bible study, right? When I first got back from South Africa, Robin, and they were asking me, you know,

I said, well, it was with a creation group, you know? She goes, well, what do you mean a creation group? I said, well, you know, we all believe that God, you know, created, you know, and there's no evolution.

She's like, you don't believe in evolution? I'm like, no. Do you? And so, she's one of the members of our church, right?

So, even, you know, in the church, right? Everybody's been indoctrinated since they're, you know, can talk, right?

Oh, evolution's true. Evolution's a fact, you know? Well, it's not a fact, right?

They get the kids with the dinosaur books. You know, dinosaurs are so cute and they live 65 million years ago.

Right. Well, with the Lord's blessings, we might be really outing you tonight. If this goes viral, you know.

So, Diana's asking if you know anything about Chandra.

Now, I don't know if I'm pronouncing that correctly. It's C -H -A -N -D -R -A. She said she saw a

YouTube video about it. Are you familiar with that? Oh, the Chandra Telescope, yeah. Okay. The Chandra Telescope?

Yeah, that's the one that they were going to discontinue, but now they're going to keep it on. Oh, okay.

Is that, yeah, I'd have to go look it up. Is that an x -ray telescope now? Yes, yes it is. Oh, it's an x -ray telescope?

Okay. So, yeah, I mean, from the Earth's surface, we can only observe optical range of electromagnetic spectrum, you know, visible and radio waves.

So, that's why you see these big, huge radio telescopes and, you know, because they're longer wavelengths than the optical.

So, the other parts of the spectrum, which you have going all the way from long to short, you have, you know, infrared and then you have radio, visible, and then you have ultraviolet, x -ray and gamma rays, right?

So, you know, as you go through the spectrum there, you get shorter wavelengths, higher energy, right? So, x -ray and ultraviolet, from ultraviolet all the way to gamma rays, you can't see from the

Earth. The atmosphere blocks the absorption. So, that's why they put x -ray telescopes in orbit.

And so, a lot of these objects out there, you view them in the visible spectrum and they show some characteristic and you view them in infrared and they show different ones.

So, that's why James telescope is mainly infrared. Well, it is infrared telescope and, you know,

Chandra is x -ray. So, they'll show the object with meaning x -ray. So, a lot of times you can tell a lot of different information about the stellar object and the different frequencies.

Interesting. So, Steve is asking if the Earth really is old, wouldn't that mean that the church was wrong for centuries about the global flood and the age of the

Earth? Okay. If the Earth is really billions of years old, that was asking?

Yeah. He says, doesn't an old Earth mean the church was wrong for centuries?

Because the church, what he's saying is that the church didn't believe in old ages.

So, if all of a sudden it came out, if there was some kind of evidence, which obviously we know that there isn't for long ages, then it would mean that the church was wrong about the global flood and the age of the

Earth. For centuries they were wrong. Yeah, for like 1800 years. Yeah. Right.

Well, so okay, let's move on to the next question and we'll make this our last question for the recording part portion of it.

But Jeff is wondering if you're familiar with apophis, A -P -O -P -H -I -S.

Okay. Asteroid expected to have a near miss with Earth within the next five to seven years.

Okay. No, I mean, I might've read about it somewhere.

It seems like every couple months or some asteroid is going to slam into the Earth, you know, whatever. So, I think

I have heard of apophis. So, the next five years are supposed to be like? Five to seven years.

Tom Horne wrote a book about apophis. Wormwood. Apophis means bitter, just like wormwood.

And that's in the Bible. And they're stating that that's a possible way that a third of the

Earth could be destroyed. I mean, it's all, you know, speculation and conjecture, but it is headed this way.

But Jeff, I don't think they said until, I don't want to say because I don't remember.

So anyways. Well, let's go ahead and wrap things up. Now, Doug, I don't know, is there a way that people could find you or if they have questions to follow up with tonight?

I'm not sure if you have a book that you can promote or whatever we can do. No, I don't have a book.

Actually, I thought about writing a book like Evidences of the Inner Solar System. I haven't done it yet. Yeah, I mean, you know,

I can give you my email and you can pass it out to the members that are, you know, that are members.

We won't say it on camera though. We can put it into the chat. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If people want to.

Yeah, sure. Absolutely. I'd be happy to talk to anybody about any of this. Right. All right. Well, tonight we've been blessed to have this presentation with Dr.

Doug Walker. So if you do have any questions and follow up, please reach out to us at creationfellowshipsanti .gmail

.com and we'll forward your questions to him. And if you'd like to see the speakers that we still have remaining for 2024, you can visit tinyurl .com

forward slash cfsarchives, c like creation, f like fellowship, s like Santee, and the word archives.