The Age of the Solar System

Did our Solar System originate from a cloud of cold dust and gas about 4.6 billion years ago, or did it have a recent origin as part of the six-day creation recorded in the Bible? The ´cold-nebula´ theory, as it is called, is accepted by evolutionists not because it can be proved, but because it is the best explanation they can find for the solar system´s existence without believing in special creation. The theory, however, rests purely on speculation, and there are a number of evidences that our solar system is quite young, which means that there has simply not been enough time for evolution. We will examine a few of these:

1. The Sun Most scientists believe that the sun´s energy is being produced by nuclear fusion, but this theory presents a serious problem, because nuclear fusion produces particles called neutrinos which easily escape from the sun and should be detectable. Yet spe-cial detection equipment has shown that the number of neutrinos coming from the sun are only a fraction of those predicted if the sun´s enegry is being produced by nuclear fusion. Prof. John N. Bahcall of the American Astronomical Society, comments: ´We seem to be stuck with a puzzle that requires a revision of something fundamental.´(1) We suggest that this ´fundamental revision´ is to consider the possibility that 19th century scientist Hermann von Helmholtz was right when he suggested that the sun s energy was being produced by gravitational collapse - a theory supported by Lord Kelvin. The reason why most scientists reject this the-ory is that it would greatly limit the age of the sun, for a sun undergoing a constant shrinkage could not last for millions of years, as this would mean that its size would have made life on earth impossible rela-tively recently in evolutionary terms, In 1979 two American scientists published evidence based upon over 200 years of solar measure-ments which appeared to show that the sun was shrinking by 1/10 of a per cent per century.(2) This would mean that the solar system must be less than 100,000 years old as that long ago the sun would have been twice its present size. Other scientists have disputed the measurement upon which this conclusion was based, and at present the matter needs further research. However, in view of the problem of the missing solar neutrinos, it seems that gravitational collapse is the most likely source of the sun´s energy, which points to the sun - and the rest of the solar system - being much younger than generally believed.

2. The Moon Believing the moon to be 4.6 billion years old, space scientists expected to find that a deep layer of micro-meteoric dust had accumulated, as the influx of this dust into the earth-moon system has been measured. Science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov said that if the moon received as much dust as the earth ´it could be dozens of feet thick´.(3)

Another science writer, Franklyn Branley, commented: ´Some astronomers think that, in places, lunar meteoric dust may be a hundred feet or more deep. Also, it may be so loosely packed that a space-ship would sink into it, never to be seen again.´(4) NASA scientists took these warnings seriously and fitted the Apollo moon lander with large saucer-shaped feet, with five4oot-long thermo-probes underneath. Upon landing, these probes were smashed, and Neil Arms-trong stepped out on to about one inch of dust! After discovering the truth about the dust layer, NASA sent a ´moon rover´ vehicle on the next mission, which travelled easily over this thin dust layer. The amount of dust indicates that the moon is less than 10,000 years old! The moon landings provided other evidences of the moon´s youthfulness, including seismic activity and measure-ments of ´rock flow´.

3. Comets. Comets have very elongated orbits, approaching close to the sun and then disappearing far out to the edge of the solar system. Short-term comets, such as Halley´s, have a period of less than 150 years. Comets have been described as ´dirty snowballs´ consisting of particles of ice, dust and de-bris. Whenever they approach the sun, emissions of energy from the sun ´blow off´ parts of the comet´s head. (This is why the tail always points away from the sun). If our solar system really were 4.6 billion years old, there would be no short-term comets left, due to their rapid disintegration. Space scientists, aware of the implications, have suggested that they are replenished from a vast shell of comets which is outside the solar system and ´too far away´ to be observed. This is called the ´Oort Cloud´ after the Dutchman who invented this the-ory, but British astronomer R. A. Littleton has demolished Oort´s theory in an article in a scientific journal.(5) The fact remains that short-term comets indicate the solar system is less than 10,000 years old.

4. Saturn´s rings. The rings of Saturn have long puzzled star-gazers, but the Voyager I mission revealed even greater mysteries. Close-up photographs show that there are thousands of rings like the grooves on a gramaphone record and, amazingly, some are braided like a rope! There are also spoke-like struc-tures within the rings, which scientists have difficulty in explaining. Some, like Larry W. Esposito, have been forced to admit that Saturn´s rings are ´relatively young objects´, and that ´the rings we have seen through Voyager´s eyes... could not have lasted the billions of years since the formation of the planets.´(6) It is noticeable that he does not suggest that the planets themselves are quite young, for this would upset the whole evolutionary apple-cart, but this is surely the most logical conclusion.

For more informations see:
- In the begining by Walter Brown

1. ´Where are the Solar Neutrinos?´, Astronomy Vol. 18, No. 3, March 1990, p. 45.
2. John Eddy and Aram Boornazian: ´Analysis of Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking´, Physics Today, 32, No. 9, Sept. 1979, p. 17.
3. ´14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year´, Science Digest, January 1959. 4. ´Apollo and the Moon´, Natural History Press, Garden City, New Jersey, 1964. 5. ´The Non-existence of the Oort Cometary Shell.´ Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31 1974, pp. 384-401. 6. ´The Changing Shape of Planetary Rings´, Astronomy Vol. 15, No. 9, September 1987, p. 14.