Dark matter

Invisible dark matter makes up most of the universe – but we can only detect it from its gravitational effects

Galaxies in our universe seem to be achieving an impossible feat. They are rotating with such speed that the gravity
generated by their observable matter could not possibly hold them together; they should have torn themselves apart
long ago. The same is true of galaxies in clusters, which leads scientists to believe that something we cannot see is at
work. They think something we have yet to detect directly is giving these galaxies extra mass, generating the extra
gravity they need to stay intact. This strange and unknown matter was called “dark matter” since it is not visible.
Dark matter
Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb,
reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark
matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter. Dark matter seems to outweigh visible
matter roughly six to one, making up about 27% of the universe. Here's a sobering fact: The matter we know and that
makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 5% of the content of the universe! But what is dark matter? One idea
is that it could contain "supersymmetric particles" – hypothesized particles that are partners to those already known in
the Standard Model. Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider  (LHC) may provide more direct clues about dark
matter.
Many theories say the dark matter particles would be light enough to be produced at the LHC. If they were created at
the LHC, they would escape through the detectors unnoticed. However, they would carry away energy and
momentum, so physicists could infer their existence from the amount of energy and momentum “missing” after a
collision. Dark matter candidates arise frequently in theories that suggest physics beyond the Standard Model, such as
supersymmetry and extra dimensions. One theory suggests the existence of a “Hidden Valley”, a parallel world made
of dark matter having very little in common with matter we know. If one of these theories proved to be true, it could
help scientists gain a better understanding of the composition of our universe and, in particular, how galaxies hold
together.
Dark energy
Dark energy makes up approximately 68% of the universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in space. It
is distributed evenly throughout the universe, not only in space but also in time – in other words, its effect is not diluted
as the universe expands. The even distribution means that dark energy does not have any local gravitational effects,
but rather a global effect on the universe as a whole. This leads to a repulsive force, which tends to accelerate the
expansion of the universe. The rate of expansion and its acceleration can be measured by observations based on the
Hubble law. These measurements, together with other scientific data, have confirmed the existence of dark energy
and provide an estimate of just how much of this mysterious substance exists.
The early universe
All matter in the universe was formed in one explosive event 13.7 billion years ago – the Big Bang
The Big Bang
In 1929 the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far-away galaxies were proportional
to their redshifts. Redshift occurs when a light source moves away from its observer: the light's apparent wavelength is
stretched via the Doppler effect towards the red part of the spectrum. Hubble’s observation implied that distant
galaxies were moving away from us, as the furthest galaxies had the fastest apparent velocities. If galaxies are
moving away from us, reasoned Hubble, then at some time in the past, they must have been clustered close together.
Hubble’s discovery was the first observational support for Georges Lemaître’s Big Bang theory of the universe,
proposed in 1927. Lemaître proposed that the universe expanded explosively from an extremely dense and hot state,
and continues to expand today. Subsequent calculations have dated this Big Bang to approximately 13.7 billion years
ago. In 1998 two teams of astronomers working independently at Berkeley, California observed that supernovae –
exploding stars – were moving away from Earth at an accelerating rate. This earned them the Nobel prize in physics in
2011
(link is external)
. Physicists had assumed that matter in the universe would slow its rate of expansion; gravity would eventually cause
the universe to fall back on its centre. Though the Big Bang theory cannot describe what the conditions were at the
very beginning of the universe, it can help physicists describe the earliest moments after the start of the expansion.
Origins
In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the universe cooled, conditions
became just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter – the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A
few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons
and neutrons combined into nuclei. As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more
slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were
mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. 1.6 million years later,
gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas. Heavier atoms such as carbon, oxygen and iron, have
since been continuously produced in the hearts of stars and catapulted throughout the universe in spectacular stellar
explosions called supernovae.
But stars and galaxies do not tell the whole story. Astronomical and physical calculations suggest that the visible
universe is only a tiny amount (4%) of what the universe is actually made of. A very large fraction of the universe, in
fact 26%, is made of an unknown type of matter called "dark matter". Unlike stars and galaxies, dark matter does not
emit any light or electromagnetic radiation of any kind, so that we can detect it only through its gravitational effects. 
An even more mysterious form of energy called “dark energy” accounts for about 70% of the mass-energy content of
the universe. Even less is known about it than dark matter. This idea stems from the observation that all galaxies
seems to be receding from each other at an accelerating pace, implying that some invisible extra energy is at work.
THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

 
Introduction -
"How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the origin of the creation of the plans
of [evolutionary] organization, if one relies entirely upon the imagination to find a solution?" —*Pierre de Grasse,
Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 178.
"Science has been seriously retarded by the study of what is not worth knowing." — *Johann von Goethe (1749-1832),
quoted in Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 257.
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic occidental imagination which could explain every
irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a leap
required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy
the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it
was ‘knowledge falsely so called.' "*David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. "—
*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963). (Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in
France.]

Where did our own Solar System come from? Is our sun just an accident? Are the precisely balanced orbits of
its moons and planets merely the result of random explosions and outer space traffic jams? Is it all the result
of haphazard chance? —a jumbled series of gigantic accidents?
Here are some facts you should know:
There have been two main views regarding the origin of the planets in our solar system. The first is that
another star happened to pass near our sun, and drew off clouds of gases which then formed themselves into
planets. This is the planetesimal group of theories. Astronomers are well aware of the fact that stars do not
wander around through space, but that is how the theory went.. 
The other main viewpoint is that a swirling cloud of gas formed itself into our sun, planets, moons, comets,
and asteroids. By 1940, all the various encounter or planetesimal theories had pretty much been discarded as
hopeless, but, beginning in that decade, under the urging of *von Weizsacker, *Whipple, *Spitzer, *Urey, *Garnow,
*Hoyle, *Kuiper, and others, an attempt has been made to bring astronomers back to some variation of the nebular
(gas cloud) hypothesis. Their efforts have been surprisingly successful, in spite of the obvious physical principle that
gas in outer space (as well as here on earth) never coagulates; it always spreads outward.
Let us consider some of the major reasons the various theories of the origin of our solar system are more foolishness
than fact.
 
1 - DISPROVING THE SEVEN THEORIES
DISPROVING THE SEVEN THEORIES—The planets in our solar system are thought to have evolved into existence
in one of seven ways:
(1) NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS—For many years the nebular hypothesis was a leading theory. According to it,
the sun and its planets supposedly condensed out of swirling eddies of cold, dark, interstellar clouds of gas
and dust.
But there are serious problems to the concept:
[1] Before any condensation of gas and dust could occur, the nebula would have diffused into outer space.
According to *Gerald P. Kuiper, a leading evolutionary astronomer, before gravitational attraction would become
significant, the particles would have to be as big as the moon.
[2] The theory requires that a complex system of roller-bearing eddies of gas and dust had to develop, which
in turn gradually whirled out into sun and planets and moons. But this is an impossibility, since such vortices
would have to remain perfectly intact during essentially the entire period of planetary formation. On this point, Kuiper
doubted that the vortices could last long enough to get the condensation building process of the planets underway.
[3] What stopped the entire process? If it were not stopped, the entire mass of material would form one large body
—without any planets and moons.
[4] Since the sun has 99.5 percent of the mass in the solar system, and all the planets and moons only have 0.5
percent of it, what would have kept these small bodies from falling into the main body?
[5] There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of our sun, but it is not condensing.
[6] Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion—that is, it is turning slowly. This "angular momentum" is far too
small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum
would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit
it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all of its rotational motion?
(2) FISSION THEORY—The "fission theory" says that our sun burst one day, and all our planets came from it.
Then the moons shot out from each planet, stopped, turned sideways and began circling the planets they came out of.
Our moon is said to have emerged from an explosion in the Pacific Ocean.
There are several problems to this theory:
[1] While the moon was moving outward from the earth, gravity would have pulverized it into rings.
[2] Moon rocks are somewhat different in composition than the material on earth.
[3] Immense outward explosions would hurl material straight out into space; they would not circle and then
form carefully balanced orbits.
[4] If thrown off by the earth, the moon should circle our world over the equator, but, instead of this, it orbits our
planet at a tilt of 18-28 to the earth's equator.
(3) CAPTURE THEORY—The "capture theory" says that our planets and moons were wandering around in space and
the planets were captured by the gravity of our sun, and the moons were captured by the planets.
But there are serious problems here also:
[1] The mathematical probabilities are extremely low. Given the great distances between objects in space, the
likelihood that objects would pass so close to one another is very little. Millions would have to pass near the
sun or planets in order for one to pass closely enough.
[2] We see no planets flying by us today! If it was occurring earlier, it should be happening with great regularity now.
We have enough telescopes in place that we could easily observe such giant rocks whizzing through our solar system.
They would be brilliant as they shot by, and many could easily be seen with the unaided eye.
[3] If they did pass near enough, gravity would crash into planets and suns, or they would merely fly past us;
they would not pause and begin orbiting within our solar system.
How could the earth, for example, capture the moon? It wouldn't. The moon would just rush on by it. When our "space-
probes"—such as the Voyager rockets—are sent to other planets, as they pass close to them they are thrown outward
and accelerated in their onward flight out into distant space.
You may ask, "Why then does an Apollo rocket, after being hurled toward the moon, begin orbiting it?" Because
closely-monitored computerized jets, controlled by telemetry signals from earth, place it into a carefully predetermined
orbit at a certain distance from the moon's surface. Nothing is left to chance, for scientists know that only failure would
result.
[4] By mathematical probabilities, it would take thousands of moons passing near the earth in order for one to
possibly begin circling it. In the process, gravity would have brought many of them crashing into the earth,
destroying both!
These solar system evolution theories appear to be little more than fables packaged in big words.
(4) ACCRETION THEORY—The "accretion, condensation, nebular contraction," or "dust cloud" theory says
that small chunks of material separately formed themselves into our earth and the moon.
"According to this idea, a dust cloud began to rotate. . When the mass had swept up most of the material in an eddy, a
planet was formed."—*M. Bishop, *B. Sutherland, and *P. Lewis, Focus on Earth Science (1981), p. 470.
It is said that the moon is just a pile of dust, and "just happened" to wander near and begin circling our world, another
"pile of dust." But two huge spheres—earth and moon—so close to each other, would fly apart or, being so
close to each other, would soon crash. They would not endlessly circle one another, neither colliding nor
separating.
(5) PLANETARY COLLISION THEORY—The "collision theory" of the origin our moon theorizes that our world is
said to have collided with a small planet. The resulting explosion threw off rocks which formed our orbiting moon.
Again there are problems:
[1] Such a giant impact would totally destroy our planet or melt its crust.
[2] The mathematical probabilities of another large object hurtling near our planet—and then striking it are remotely
"possible." But the fantastically slight probabilities that it could hit our planet with just the right weight, speed,
and angle of hit to produce an orbiting of the moon around our earth, make the whole process an
impossibility.
[3] But more: This would have had to happen repeatedly—again and again—for all the other moons in our
solar system! (At the present time 60 moons in our solar system have been counted; the 1989 Neptune flyby added 6
more to the total.)
[4] With 60 moons to form, tens of thousands of moons would have to pass by our nine planets In order for
their five dozen moons to begin orbiting them! In the process, thousands of collisions would have occurred,
destroying everything!
[5] If so many near collisions of giant spheres are necessary in order for moons to form, why are not such near
collisions regularly occurring today? Why are not moons regularly passing us now? In order to agree with the
probabilities (mathematical likelihood) that it could occur, several dozen moons would have to fly through our
solar system every day now—and for billions of years beforehand—in order for 60 moons to accidentally start
circling our nine planets through close fly-bys. Of course, that many wandering spheres entering our solar system
would cause havoc—and the resulting collisions would smash both planets and moons and hurtle the pieces into the
sun.
The truth is that the inventors of these harebrained schemes do not consider the involvement and consequences of
their theories before propounding them. Compounding the problem, the public thinks that doctoral graduates must be
very wise. They may be fine people, but no one lives long enough to become very smart. Forty-five years of active
adulthood is hardly enough time for a man to learn enough—to even begin to recognize that he is actually quite
ignorant.
 
(6) STELLAR COLLISION THEORY—The "collision theory" of the origin of our entire solar system suggests that our
planets, moons, and sun all spun off from a collision between stars. As with most of the other theories, the problems
here are:
[1] A collision hurls materials outward. The debris would continually travel outward forever.
[2] If any pieces were drawn together by gravity, they would have smashed into each other; they would not
mutually orbit.
(7) GAS CLOUD THEORY—The "gas cloud theory" of our planets and moons teaches that gas clouds were
captured by our sun, which then mysteriously formed themselves at a distance into planets and moons.
More problems:
[1] We have already observed that gas does not lump together, any more than air clumps together into solids.
[2] If these planets and moons did adhere in that manner, they would not orbit one another, nor would they all
together circle the sun.
According to the theory, gas formed into dust grains, and these glued together somehow and built up into fist-sized
chunks. These pieces continued to grow until they became planets and moons. But, as mentioned in the previous
chapter, *Harwit calculated that it would be impossible for the gas and dust to stick together in outer space,
and before any condensation of gas and dust could occur, it all would separate.
"Planetary accretion, like most other aspects of solar system origin, is imperfectly understood. Once planetary nuclei
(objects some tens of kilometers in dimension, say) had gotten started, it is easy enough to see how they would grow
by [gravitationally] sweeping up smaller particles. But it has always been difficult to see how the start was made, why
dust particles, chondrules, and Ca, Al-rich inclusions chose to clump together."— *J.A. Wood, The Solar System
(1979), p. 187.

2 - SEVEN MORE FLAWS

SEVEN MORE FLAWS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM THEORIES—There are several other weaknesses in these theories
of the origin of our solar system. Here are some of them:
(1) They do not explain where stars, planets and moons originated.
(2) They assume that the very precise and complicated orbits in our solar system came about by chance. Yet
that could never happen. Man-made satellites eventually fall back to earth. All the moons should fall into their
respective planets, and the planets should also fall into the sun.. Yet that could never happen. Man-made satellites
eventually fall back to earth. All the moons should fall into their respective planets, and the planets should also fall into
the sun.
(3) To the extent to which we have studied them, each planet and moon in our solar system has unique structures and
properties. How could each one be different if all of them came from the sun or a common stellar collision?
How could each one be different if all of them came from the sun or a common stellar collision? How could
each one be different if all of them came from the sun or a common stellar collision?
(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.
(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these
fanciful theories
(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.
(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these
fanciful theories
(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.
(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these fanciful
theories. Within the time span of mankind no such evolutionary changes as those taught by astronomical theorists has
occurred. How can we assume they take place! This imaginative thinking is not science, but fiction writing.
(6) Evolutionary theorists cannot come up with a rational explanation of the intricate balancings and orbital motions
of moons and planets in our solar system! As mentioned earlier, Everything should crash together or fly apart.
*Sir Harold Jeffreys, one of the world's leading geophysicists, after carefully examining the evidence for each of the
various theories of how our solar system evolved into existence, summarized the situation in this way:
"To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the [evolutionary] origin of the Solar System are subject to serious
objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist."— *Harold
Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution (1970), p. 359.

Since Jeffreys made that analysis, * NASA has poured millions upon millions of dollars into a gigantic effort to find
evidence on the moon and other planets for evolution. But, to date, all the evidence discovered has been in favor of
creation, not evolution. In one admissive statement, NASA said this about the theories and the evidence:
"It is important to be aware that there is no one theory for the origin and subsequent evolution of the Solar System that
is generally accepted. All theories represent models which fit some of the facts observed today, but not all." —*Mars
and Earth, U. S. Government Printing Office, NF-61 (August 1975), p. 1.
(There is a keen excitement to spend billions of dollars on a journey to Mars. The money could be better spent
developing ways to desalinate seawater, design low-cost solar heating cells for heating and electricity, improve crop
yield, or any number of other things that would help people down here. A primary objective of the trip is to try to find life
on that ruddy planet. It has been hoped that this would provide evidence elsewhere of biologic evolution, since
there is none on our own planet!
"If it turns out that there is life there as well, then, I would say, it would convince large numbers of people that the
origins of life exist. " —*Carl Sagan, "Life on Mars: What Could It Mean?" in Science News, June 5, 12, 1976, pp.
378-379.
(See appendix to chapter 9 [Primitive Environment] for a list of 15 multi-million-dollar space satellite research projects
for the purpose of finding life in outer space.)
(7) Hydrogen gas never "gravitates" into solids—anywhere, either on the earth or in outer space. Scientists now know
that neither gas nor dust particles can push themselves into small or large solids. There is no known mechanism by
which small particles of gas could stick together to build up chunks big enough, which would finally attract each other
gravitationally, and form planets. There is no known mechanism by which dust particles in outer space could do it
either.
"The idea that the sun could be formed by the gravitational collapse of a cloud of gas involves many theoretical
difficulties. A gas cloud of the type presently observed out in space, unless it were a number of times greater in mass
than the sun, would tend to expand rather than contract . . Furthermore, a cloud could not contract unless there were
some way in which much of the resulting heat could be radiated out of the cloud. But it is not yet firmly established that
a process exists that could get this heat out of the cloud." — R.E. Kofahl and KL. Segraves, Creation Explanation
(1975), p. 142.

3 – FACTS ABOUT PLANETS AND MOONS

SEVEN FACTS ABOUT PLANETS AND MOONS—Here are additional facts that do not fit into any evolutionary theory
of how our solar system came into existence:
(1) A full 99.5 percent of all the angular momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets, yet a
staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass in our solar system is located in our sun! To an astrophysicist this is both
astounding and unexplainable. There is no known mechanical process which could accomplish this transfer of
momentum from the sun to its planets.
Our sun is rotating far too slowly to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed. To say it
another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun. They are moving fast
around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly. (But that is understandable: the One who planned it all
arranged for the planets to rapidly revolve so they would not hurtle into the sun, whereas the sun would need to turn
slowly so it would not tear itself to pieces and fling the pieces outward into space.)
Jupiter itself has 60 percent of the planetary angular motion. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this. This strange
distribution was the primary cause of the downfall of the nebular hypothesis. To satisfy the theory, the sun would
originally have had to spin at an extremely high speed. But instead, it rotates slowly.
*David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun
had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it
now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original
angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, * Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its
momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?
"Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the
bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty
presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it
would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?"—*David
Layzer, "Cosmogony," in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.

There is no possible means by which the angular momentum from the sun could be transferred to the planets. Yet this
is what would have to be done if any of the evolutionary theories of solar system origin are to be accepted.
Since our sun contains 99-6/7 percent of all the mass in the solar system, why was not one large mass of material
formed, Instead of our giant sun and its small planets? Why did not the remaining 1/7 of one percent just fall into the
sun?
Scientists cannot account for this puzzling situation: less than one percent of the mass of the solar system is in the
planets, while a staggering 98 percent of its angular momentum is in the sun. It simply does not fit into any of the
cosmologies. Speaking of the mass-angular momentum problem, *Bergamini says:
"A theory of evolution that fails to account for this peculiar fact is ruled out before it starts."—*David Bergamini, The
Universe, p. 93.
(2) The orbits of Mercury, Pluto, asteroids, and comets each have an extreme inclination from the plane of the sun's
ecliptic.
(3) Both Uranus and Venus rotate backwards to that of all the other planets. Seven of the nine planets rotate directly
forward, in relation to their orbit around the sun. Why then does Venus rotate slowly backwards, and Uranus rotate at
a 98 degree angle from its orbital plane, even though its orbit inclines less than that of any other planet? Uranus is
literally rolling along!
"The spacecraft's fabulous set of data [did not] shed any clear light on why a planet should evolve as Uranus did,
spinning so oddly. Perhaps . . , despite everything found in January [1966 during the Voyager 2 flyby], we'll never
know the answer."—*J.K Beatty, "A Place Called Uranus, " In Sky and Telescope, April 1986, p. 337.

(4) One-third of the 60 moons in our solar system have retrograde (backward) orbits, which are the opposite of the
rotational direction of their respective planets. Theories of cosmology cannot explain backwards-orbiting moons.
(5) Consider Triton, the inner of Neptune's moons, which, with a diameter of 3,000 miles, is nearly twice the mass of
our moon, yet it revolves backwards every six days, has a nearly circular orbit,—and is only 220,000 miles [354,046
km] from its planet! It should fall into the planet any day now, but it does not do so. *Isaac Asimov has tried to explain it
with a theory that it "was thrown away from that planet by some cosmic collision or other accident" and, at a later time,
flew back and was recaptured "by a similar accident"! (*Isaac Asimov, Intelligent Man's Guide to Science (1960), Vol.
1, p. 78.) The same explanation is used for all the other backward-orbiting moons. Evolutionists try to explain
everything in the universe as nothing more than a series of fortunate accidents. If that is the explanation for Triton's
retrograde motion, how about the other one-third of the moons in our solar system which rotate the same way? How
many such "accidents" may the evolutionists be permitted to invoke to prop up theories already tottering under the
weight of their own unproved assumptions?
(6) There are such striking differences between planets and planets, planets and moons, moons and moons,—that the
experts can produce no explanation that can explain them. If they all came from the same gas clouds, they should all
be alike! But some are relatively smooth, others extremely mountainous, still others have volcanoes, and yet others
are covered with a variety of peculiar chemical atmospheres.
(7) The ratio of elements in the earth is far too different from those found in the sun, and the same holds true
for the other planets in comparison with the sun. How then could the earth and other planets be torn out of the sun
(planetesimal theory) or come from the same gas cloud that produced the sun (nebular hypothesis)? Listen to *Fred
Hoyle of Cambridge:
"Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they amount
to only about 1 percent of the total mass. . The contrast [with the heavy elements which predominate in the earth]
brings out . . important points. First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation
of the planets as we know them."—*Fred Hoyle, quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1967, p.
73.

FACTS ABOUT SATURN

INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT SATURN—The rings of Saturn are primarily composed of solid ammonia, along with
pebbles of various sizes. Scientists are trying to figure out how such a delicate substance such as ammonia, which
should rather quickly vaporize off into space, could be formed into these equally delicate rings. How could those rings
—and Saturn inside them—have been accidentally formed from gas, collisions, or some other such chance
occurrence?
And then there are its 17 moons which never collide with the rings. The farthest out is Phoebe, which revolves in a
motion opposite to Saturn and its rings. How could that happen?
"Saturn, a planet of nearly one hundred times the mass of our earth, has millions of amazing and fragile solid bodies in
orbit in the form of the familiar relatively thin rings of Saturn. According to the spectrum measurements by Dr. G. P.
Kuiper of the University of Arizona, these rings are composed mainly of solid ammonia. Since solid ammonia has
much higher vapor pressure than ice, for instance, it is questionable whether the ammonia could have survived for the
supposed life of the planet of some 4.5 billion years
"The eminent astronomer, Dr. H. Alfven has stated that it is unlikely that any force acting today could have caused the
ring structure of Saturn, and that it is probable that the rings were formed at the same time as Saturn itself. He points
out that it is doubtful that such a fragile ring-like structure could survive the tremendous tidal forces (gravitational, as
well as other forces) acting on it if its age is actually, as generally believed, 4.5 billion years old. Many scientists agree
with Dr. Alfven that it is indeed unlikely that any force acting today could have caused the ring structure of Saturn."—
H.M. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R. F Koontz, Silence and Creation (1971), p. 73.
To add to the puzzle, in recent years it has been discovered that there are other planets in our solar system which
have even more fragile ring systems.
THE HYPOTHESES HAVE FAILED—After carefully studying all the modern theories of the origin of our earth and
solar system, *Sir Harold Spencer Jones of the Royal Greenwich Observatory in England, wrote this conclusion to the
whole matter:
"The problem of formulating a satisfactory theory of the origin of the solar system is therefore still not solved. "—*H.S
Jones, "The Origin of the Solar System" in Physics and Chemistry of the Earth (1956), p. 15.

*Whipple adds this: "All the hypotheses [regarding solar system formation] so far presented have failed, or re main
unproven, when physical theory is properly applied."—*Fred C. Whipple, Orbiting the Sun (1981), p. 284.

5 - FACTS ABOUT OUR MOON

THREE SPECIAL FACTS ABOUT OUR MOON—There are facts about our own moon that simply cannot be explained
by any theory of solar evolution.
(1) All of the new information coming in about its nature and structure, reveals that the moon is very different from
the earth.
"To the surprise of scientists, the chemical makeup of the moon rocks is distinctly different from that of rocks on earth.
This difference implies that the moon formed under different conditions. . and means that any theory on the origin of
the planets now will have to create the moon and earth in different ways."—*Jerry E. Bishop, ''New Theories of
Creation, " in Science Digest, October 1972, p. 42.
The moon and earth have different structures and therefore different origins! From evidence that NASA has so far
been able to obtain, the same situation exists in regard to the other planets and moons in our solar system!
(2) The present situation in which our earth and moon orbit one another is simply too astounding an
arrangement to be accidental. It could neither be originated nor maintained by random operations.
Our moon is larger in relation to the planet it orbits, than is any other moon in our solar system. Go out at night and
look at it. To have such a huge body circling so close to us—without falling into the earth—is simply astounding. For its
size, it is very, very close to earth. Scientists cannot keep their satellites orbiting the earth without occasional
adjustments. Lacking those periodic adjustments, the orbits gradually "decay," and the satellites eventually fall and
crash.
*Isaac Asimov, the foremost evolutionary science writer of our day, describes the precision of this relationship. In the
following statement, think for a moment about that word, "balances."
"The moon is always falling. It has a sideways motion of its own that balances its falling motion. It therefore stays in a
closed orbit about the Earth, never falling altogether and never escaping altogether."—*Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts
(1979), p. 400.
(3) In addition, new discoveries made about the moon reveal that it is quite young—only a few thousand years old. A
very young moon would not fit into any of the evolutionary theories of the origin of our solar system. There simply is
not enough time for the various theories, with their collisions and near-collisions, to take effect. (Additional information
on the age of the moon will be found near the beginning of chapter 6, Age of the Earth. Scientific evidence also
indicates that the earth itself is quite young. For example, the principle of lunar recession, discussed in chapter 6, is a
powerful evidence for both a very young earth and a very young moon.)
CONCLUSION— No matter how deep men may go in their study of the universe, they will, if they seek truth,
always arrive at the same conclusion.
"It would seem that the more accurate knowledge that we accumulate on the present nature of our universe the more
complex become the theories concerning the meaning of the facts. For example, we have more precise information
concerning our own planet Earth and the other members of our solar system than any other part of the universe. Yet
there are many facts concerning the solar system which have long defied efforts to fit our corner of the universe into
any of the general cosmologies discussed above." — H.M. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and
Creation (1971), p. 92.

"I suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and
some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher's
value for the age of the Earth and Sun. [4004 B.C.] I don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence in
astronomy to conflict with that.''—*John Eddy, Geotimes (1978) (italics ours).
"The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the
chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and
energy . . For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has
scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he
is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.''—*Robert Jastrow, God and the
Astronomers (1978).

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know
that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the
experimental evidence supports it."—H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," in Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p.
138.
"Everything points with overwhelming force to a definite event or events of creation at some time or times not infinitely
remote.''—*James Jeans, Eos or The Wider Aspects of Cosmogony, p. 35.
Sir Isaac Newton is generally recognized as one of the two greatest scientists of the past 500 years. He clearly saw
the implications of celestial mechanics and the intricately designed wonders in the sky.
"One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped
in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank,
and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. Standing
off a few feet he exclaimed, 'My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?' Without looking up from his book,
Newton answered, 'Nobody!'
"Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, 'Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?'
Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much
admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, 'You must
think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is.'
"Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder. 'This thing is but a puny imitation of a
much grander system, whose laws you know,—and here I am not able to convince you that this mere toy before you is
without a designer and maker! Yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has
come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an
incongruous conclusion?"—The Minnesota Technolog, October 1957.
"If the universe is a universe of thought [structured in a planned, thoughtful manner], then its creation must have been
an act of thought." — *James H. Jeans, Mysterious Universe (1932), p. 181.