Our Created Solar System - Mercury

Welcome to the first planet in our Solar System: tiny Mercury. Mercury is only 3,000 miles in diameter, making it about as wide as the continental United States. It is smaller than all of the other planets (except for Pluto and some of the other Dwarf Planets), and is even smaller than some of the larger moons in the Solar System, such as Ganymede or Titan. One Mercurian day lasts about as long as 58 days on Earth, and Mercury orbits the sun every 88 Earth days, giving it the shortest year in the Solar System. Mercury's gravity is also a little less than half that of Earth's. The little planet has no atmosphere, though, and endures drastic temperature extremes ranging from a high of 840F to a low of -280F (449C to -173C). As a result, Mercury would not be a very pleasant place to live or to visit. The little planet has almost no axial tilt, meaning it does not experience the lengthening and shortening of days that Earth does. It does, however, have one of the most elliptical orbits in the Solar System, giving it dramatic seasonal changes.

Mercury is also surprisingly dense; more dense than any planet in the Solar System save for Earth itself. There's only one problem with that. According to the Nebular Hypothesis, Mercury cannot be that dense. You see, Mercury has a very large iron core; up to 75% of the planet may in fact be nothing but an iron core. This is simply not possible according to Evolution. But don't take our word for it. Listen to the words of Evolutionist Dr. Stuart Ross Taylor, who says: 'It has become clear that none of these proposed models work, and the high density is conveniently accommodated by the large-impact hypothesis, which makes Mercury unique.' (Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective pg. 194)

What is the 'large-impact hypothesis' you ask? Well, we're glad you asked. You may remember in our last post on the Solar System that we discussed the need to rescue the Nebular Hypothesis from itself by invoking asteroid collisions? Well, there's a scientific name for that: The Large-Impact Hypothesis. And while Dr. Taylor tells us this hypothesis makes Mercury unique, we'll soon discover how very common it is that this hypothesis is invoked. So, in brief then, Evolution tells us that Mercury did indeed form according to the Nebular Hypothesis, but at some point in time in Mercury's history, a large asteroid struck it and stripped away all of the lighter material, leaving behind the second most dense planet in the Solar System, with the largest core (proportionally speaking) of them all. 'So what's the evidence for this collision?' Spike Psarris asks. 'Well, only that if it didn't occur Mercury would disprove Evolution!' That's right. There is absolutely no evidence that such an impact ever occurred. The only reason we have to assume it did is that no other possible explanation can be found for how Mercury formed according to the Nebular Hypothesis and yet exists in its current state.

But this isn't the only problem Mercury presents for Evolution. When Mariner 10 visited the planet in the 1970s, it detected a magnetic field, much like Earth's (though far weaker). However, according to Evolution, Mercury can't have a magnetic field. Magnetic fields are very volatile things, with rather short lifespans. Indeed, our own magnetic field has weakened considerably since we started measuring it a few centuries ago. The only means that modern science has come up with to explain magnetic fields that last for billions of years (as opposed to thousands) is what is called the Dynamo Theory. Simply put, according to Dynamo, if a planet has a molten core, the combination of the liquid metal in the core and the planet's rotation can create a long-lasting magnetic field.

Mercury compared to the Earth

Now that's all well and good, but if Mercury is 4.5 billion years old, it's also impossible. As Dr. Taylor tells us, 'Mercury is so small that the general opinion is that planet should have frozen solid eons ago' (Destiny or Chance: Our Solar System and Its Place in the Cosmos pg.163). Mercury's iron core, according to Evolution, ought to be one big solid chunk of iron, not the fluid, molten core that Earth has. Without a molten core, Dynamo cannot work. And after 4.5 billion years, a pure iron core cannot remain molten. How does Evolution rescue itself this time? Well, there are ways to keep Mercury's core molten for so long. If it were an iron-sulfide core, it could indeed still be molten and allow Dynamo to work. But that's also a problem. Sulfur is too volatile an element. It is impossible, according to the Nebular Hypothesis, for a planet to form as close to the Sun as Mercury did and possess an iron-sulfide core. Even in seeking to rescue their theory from itself, they undermine it.

Mercury's iron core and extant magnetic field present absolutely no problems for Creationists, however. There are multiple methods of short-term magnetic field generation, such as remnant magnetism. These methods would not allow for a billions of years old magnetic field like Dynamo does, but in a universe that is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old? No problem at all for remnant magnetism. Indeed, a belief that Mercury was created several thousand years ago fits the data much better than a belief that Mercury slowly accreted from swirling material 4.5 billion years ago. Mercury thus brings to mind the words of I Corinthians 1:27, 'But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.' Those that think themselves wise enough to discern how the universe formed are utterly baffled by tiny Mercury. Instead, we can stand in awe of the Creator's majesty as it is expressed by this little world.

Join us the first weekend in October as we continue our exploration of the Solar System with a trip to Venus, often called 'Earth's Twin'!

Our Created Solar System - Introduction

The Solar System (not to scale)

Welcome to the first post in this series about our Solar System! The Solar System is a truly amazing place, and we're very excited to begin exploring it with you. Now most people, when they think of the Solar System, imagine the traditional nine planets, as displayed here. These are the objects we will be exploring in great detail over the course of this series, but they are only a tiny fraction of everything to be found within the Solar System. There is much, much more to see and discover!

To give you an idea of how vast the Solar System is, we'll start with distance. Distances in space are huge; so huge, it's not reasonable to measure them in miles or kilometers. You are no doubt familiar with light years, the unit we use to measure the distances between stars. Well, just as miles are too small to measure the Solar System, light years are too big. So science has come up with an intermediate unit for measuring the Solar System. It has been named, quite creatively, the Astronomical Unit, or AU. 1 AU is equivalent to the distance the Earth is from the sun, or 93 million miles (150 million km). Our Solar System is some 50 AU in size (about 4.5 billion miles/7.5 billion km). Within those 50 AU, there are 8 universally accepted planets, 5 dwarf planets (Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris) and roughly 700,000 other orbiting objects such as asteroids, comets, and moons.

Now you may be wondering, "Where did all this stuff come from?" There are basically two schools of thought on the issue: The Bible vs. the Big Bang, or put another way, Creation vs. Evolution. (When we use the term "Evolution" in the context of astronomy, we're referring to the concept that everything formed gradually over time without a Creator.) Creation, drawing from the Bible, tells us that the entire Universe was created over the course of six days some 6 - 10 thousand years ago. Evolution tells us quite another story, called the "Nebular Hypothesis", which was first postulated by Immanuel Kant in the 1750s, and further refined over time. It has become, since the 19th century, the dominant accepted model of the origins of the Solar System.

An artist's concept of the early Solar System, some 4 billion years ago

According to Evolution, the Universe began with the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago. About 4.6 billion years ago, our Solar System began to form. Clouds of dust and gas slowly began to swirl and condense, first into the Sun, and then into many orbiting bodies. This process is called accretion. This hypothesis claims to explain the shape of the Solar System, the orbits and rotations of the planets, as well as the reason why the inner planets are rocky while the outer planets are gaseous. In fact, this model is so widely accepted by modern science that it is usually treated as fact, is often incorrectly labeled "The Nebula Theory" (when in reality is still hasn't gotten past "Hypothesis"), and is the only model used or considered by the majority of modern scientists.

"There's only one problem with this model," says U.S. Military Space Engineer Spike Psarris, "and that's that it doesn't work." You see, we've actually tested accretion. You can test it in your own home in fact. And it works, on a small scale. Small particles of dust do, in fact, cling together and grow into larger particles of dust. You can see this with the dust bunnies under your bed, or the filth on the lint screen in your dryer. Accretion is a real thing, and it works... until you try to take it too far. We can demonstrate accretion on a small scale, and we can simulate it on a medium scale. Simulations have shown how dust clouds in space can indeed accrete into small rocks, those rocks can accrete into larger rocks, and larger rocks can accrete into asteroids or "planetesimals". The problem is, we can't figure out how planetesimals accrete into planets. That does not work. And yet, for the Nebular Hypothesis to be true, it must work.

Even Evolutionists themselves admit the failure of the Nebular Hypothesis to actually explain how the Solar System formed. According to Professor Martin Harwit of Cornell University, "Once these planetesimals have been formed, further growth of planets may occur through their gravitational accretion into large bodies. Just how that takes place is not understood." (Martin Harwit, "Astrophysical Concepts" pg. 553) So, they come up with this intricate, elaborate explanation, and finally must admit that they don't actually know how their own idea works.

Accretion isn't the only reason this model doesn't work. Remember when we said that the Nebular

The hero of the story

Hypothesis is supposed to explain why the planets are the way they are? It actually doesn't. Evolution cannot actually account for a single planet being the way it is. So, and I kid you not, the go-to explanation for almost every single contradiction between reality and this model is that an asteroid hit it. You see, everything formed exactly the way Evolution predicted it should... but at some point in time, a big fat rock smashed into it and made it the way it is today. That's not a joke. But as we explore the Solar System in depth over the next several months, you will see just how comical, how unbelievable, how un-scientific even, this claim really is. But it is a necessary claim to rescue their own hypothesis from reality, for as Spike tells us, and we shall soon see, "Each [planet] in a unique way disproves Evolution".

The Bible tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1), and they do. The heavens also speak of a young Solar System, a young Universe. We hope that you will return with us in two weeks as we begin our amazing journey through the Solar System to discover its wonders, beginning with Mercury!

Planetary News: The Return of Fiat Lux and Beginning of a New Program

We have wonderful news! After three years of silence, Fiat Lux returns! We've undergone a few changes, but the mission will remain the same. This site will remain dedicated to teaching about the wonders of the universe from a Creationist perspective.

To kick off the return of Fiat Lux, we're going to begin a new semi-monthly series called "Our Created Solar System". The series will take readers through the Solar System, from Mercury out to Pluto, and discuss how each and every object in our Solar System is evidence for Creation, and how those same objects disprove the notion that our Solar System came about on its own billions of years ago. Much of the direction for this program will draw from a 2006 presentation given by U.S. Military Space Engineer Spike Psarris at the Seattle Creation Conference.

We will be drawing a lot from Spike's presentation, but there will also be extra information independently researched. Spike has a lot of important things to tell us, though, so we're going to draw heavily from him. In his own words, "Although we are told... over and over again that science has it all figured out, that Evolution is the answer, that there are no problems with this theory whatsoever... I'm here to tell you that's not true."

We will see and hear more from Spike and Fiat Lux in the coming weeks. Look for a new post in the Our Created Solar System series every first and third Saturday of the month! And don't worry, we'll still post the information you've come to expect: exoplanets, whenever we can. We've lot's to catch up on in the realm of planets beyond our Solar System.

Image taken from http://theheavensdeclaredvd.com/