Gravity versus the Young-Earth Creationists

[Ut]

Simplest answer, maybe, but also one of the least satisfying. "We're here because we're here" has always sounded like a bit of a cop out to almost everyone.

Why are we here?
Because we're here.
But why?
...?
Why are we here?
Because this is where we were born.
But why here?
Because this is where it was possible.
But why?...

In this way, the weak anthropic principle will, eventually, answer the question (by appealing to all branches of science, of course), but it's very round about. In the end, it says life formed on Earth because Earth had good conditions for life to form. And that's pretty much it.

[George]

Point 3 was actually that the planetary system formed in a region of denser star formation than the sun, and thus could have been affected early on. Point 4 was for that of some sort of interaction that would cause a planet to migrate in ward over a long period of time.

Your Point 3 seems plausible but their argument is these gas giants can't survive in close, hot orbits so, therefore, the obvious conclusive answer is, of course, a young universe.

Your Point 4, as I recall, was never mentioned in their reasoning as you are assuming the universe is more than 6,000 years old.

I'm not sure I understand the juice analogy.

Sorry 'bout that. A business woman was telling us recently that she had decided not to engage in a certain business endeavor because it was...."too much squeeze for the juice". Meaning it was going to take too much effort to get just a little benefit from that effort. [Not surprisngly, I muffed it in my version as I am still struggling with English (too bad I don't know another language )]. Anywary, we all loved her metaphor.

The problem I have with anyone arguing that hot jupiters give a case for a young Earth is that there's a huge statistical bias toward finding these planets.

The key word of the day is...."bias". That is the heart of our objections with their assumptions and conclusion. (Your use, of course, is "on the money").

To find a planet in an orbit comparable to Jupiter, it would take nearly 25 years of observations. To find a planet in an orbit like Saturn, it would take nearly 60 years. We simply haven't been observing for long enough to see these planets. It's the absurdly close, massive ones that stand out. There could be a thousand times more "normal" gas giants.

I figured once the public got wind of extrasolar planets, things would happen. The current Sky and Telescope issue has a nice article on much that is happening in gearing up for improved detection, as well as, atmospheric analysis.

It might be interesting to see what changes are made, if any, to their article. Will they stick with the idea that these "gas giants" in close orbit is proof that the universe is young? #-o Will it now take finding numerous "Earth-like" planets to justify the idea that our planet is not uniquely crafted by God? Which gives God the greater glory - more, or less, Earth-like planets?

[Ut]

I've actually chosen not to take a side in this debate. Of course, I'm assuming that Earth (and the universe) is more than 6000 years old. I base this assumption on such things as dinosaur fossils (the fact that they're not dinosaur bones), and evidence for an ice age some 15,000 years ago (twice the age of the Earth?).

Of course, the YEC argument can be forced against them. Most notably, the Bible doesn't mention one word on extra-solar planets. Why must they have been created at the same time as the Earth? I know they harp on the whole Earth below and heavens above thing in Genesis, but find it really hard to grasp the idea of taking literal translations of the Bible. It was written by people. It's already a human interpreatation. Even if it is the word of a god, it's written by human hands, and thus suspect.

1) There are far, far more planets out there than we realize, and these hot jupiters are simply satistical anomolies which have sprung up first due to the ease of detecting them.

2) The Sun was lucky enough to form in a less dense cluster than some of these other stars, and thus didn't have its 'family' thrown out of wack by a neighbour.

3) There's something just inherently stable about having large, massive bodies so far away from the sun. Lable this one HIGHLY speculative.

4) How long have these hot jupiters been around for? Millions of years? Billions of years? It's possible that, someday, Jupiter will come spiraling in toward the Sun, while playing bumper pool with the other bodies in the Solar System. It just hasn't happened yet.

So, as I understand it, (3) lends nothing to the argument because Jupiter isn't close to the Sun. (4) isn't mentioned by the YECs because...Jupiter isn't close to the Sun. (2) also seems like it wouldn't be a popular point amongst YECs, because Jupiter isn't close tot he sun. I sense a pattern. Jupiter isn't the exception that proves the rule, so our solar system isn't a convenienet example. So it can be ignored. :roll:

The idea that a gas giant can't exist close to its parent star in itself is suspect. Why can't it? If it's big enough, it's escape velocity will be high enough to retain most of its mass in a tight orbit. There's a limit to how close it can be, of course, and a number of these planets are probably boiling away, but that could take millions or even thousands of millions of years.

What do they think about sandy beaches? Do they deny they exist, because of the large time scales involved in reducing rock into sand? Or do they argue that the Earth must be young because the sand is still on the beaches? What about rocky beaches? Is the Earth old, because all of the sand has been washed away? Or young, because the rocks haven't been ground into sand yet? There are more lines of thought than just using hot jupiters. They shouldn't pick and choose.

[George]

Of course, the YEC argument can be forced against them. Most notably, the Bible doesn't mention one word on extra-solar planets. Why must they have been created at the same time as the Earth? I know they harp on the whole Earth below and heavens above thing in Genesis, but find it really hard to grasp the idea of taking literal translations of the Bible. It was written by people. It's already a human interpreatation. Even if it is the word of a god, it's written by human hands, and thus suspect.

The difficult issue for me is the irony I see. They feel compelled to defend the credibility of the Bible using their spin on "scientific evidence", which, reduces the credibility of the Bible. I honestly don't blame them for wanting to take the strictest literal path, but, the truth must be honored above our "wantings". God is not the author of confusion. I believe that both science and the Bible are reconcilable. The Earth is not the center of the universe and they are not presenting any measurable, if any, scientific evidence to show it is 6,000 years old.

I should say the only YEC advocate I know personally is a super guy (a E.E., too) who is currently building a complete house for a person (pastor) who has lived 20 years in a 20x8 room with no running water here in San Antonio.

The idea that a gas giant can't exist close to its parent star in itself is suspect. Why can't it? If it's big enough, it's escape velocity will be high enough to retain most of its mass in a tight orbit. There's a limit to how close it can be, of course, and a number of these planets are probably boiling away, but that could take millions or even thousands of millions of years.

Here is more of their view…

The data is easy to understand from a young-earth creation model. Since Creation Week ended (Genesis 2:1–3) some 6,000 years ago as measured on earth, the sun and nearby spectral class G stars have completed much less than one galactic rotation. Certainly, since Creation Week, these nearby star systems have experienced little stellar evolution. The creation interpretation affects our understanding of the origin of our solar system and of extrasolar planets

They are assuming that gas giants are contrary to scientific evolutionary models. They do not mention any plausible ideas about their existence other than their own biased view – young universe. You mentioned a few ideas that should be addressed by them but they are not.

What do they think about sandy beaches?

You can go to their home page… here and search for “sand” and find 192 articles.

[Ut]

The data is easy to understand from a young-earth creation model. Since Creation Week ended (Genesis 2:1–3) some 6,000 years ago as measured on earth, the sun and nearby spectral class G stars have completed much less than one galactic rotation. Certainly, since Creation Week, these nearby star systems have experienced little stellar evolution. The creation interpretation affects our understanding of the origin of our solar system and of extrasolar planets

They are assuming that gas giants are contrary to scientific evolutionary models. They do not mention any plausible ideas about their existence other than their own biased view – young universe. You mentioned a few ideas that should be addressed by them but they are not.

But why would they even care about scientific evolutionary ideas? They don't believe in biological evolution, so why stellar? It could very well be that Generic Diety decided that s/he liked hot jupiters. S/he then placed them in the appropriate zone so that they wouldn't boil away, and thus could be there indefinately.

You can't damn science, and then turn around and use it as evidence. It just doesn't work that way.

[George]

But why would they even care about scientific evolutionary ideas? They don't believe in biological evolution, so why stellar? It could very well be that Generic Diety decided that s/he liked hot jupiters. S/he then placed them in the appropriate zone so that they wouldn't boil away, and thus could be there indefinately.

They perceive much of mainstream science as competition for the truth. Whenever some scientific model appears to stumble (planetary evolution), then that’s when they make best use of their argument for their case.

According to evolution, the rocky, terrestrial planets formed because the inner solar nebula was hot, while the outer regions of the solar nebula were cold, forming the gas giants.2 The same characteristics were expected for the planetary systems of other stars since they supposedly formed the same way. However, gas-giant planets orbiting less than 0.4 AU from their parent stars explode this belief. Somehow, evolutionists have avoided publicizing this issue.

Sometimes, if they perceive a stumble, they give their opponent a little nudge to boot. :roll:

Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable enough on disk theory to say just how wrong they are but the BA, I believe (55%), is pretty well versed in this category.

[BA comments on accretion disk theory in regards to hot gas giants highly welcomed here]

You can't damn science, and then turn around and use it as evidence. It just doesn't work that way.

You mean it doesn’t work that way here. Remember, in general, people believe what they want to believe. In fairness, I also am guilty too at times. This is one reason this board is so cool as it encourages scientific truth to be established.

[squeak]

Simplest answer, maybe, but also one of the least satisfying. "We're here because we're here" has always sounded like a bit of a cop out to almost everyone.

Why are we here?
Because we're here.
But why?
...?
Why are we here?
Because this is where we were born.
But why here?
Because this is where it was possible.
But why?...

In this way, the weak anthropic principle will, eventually, answer the question (by appealing to all branches of science, of course), but it's very round about. In the end, it says life formed on Earth because Earth had good conditions for life to form. And that's pretty much it.

Weak anthropic principle doesn't answer "Why" it only answers "How".

"How" is what the scientists want to know, and weak anthropic answers it in a way with the fewest "magic tricks".

"Why" would be for theologians and philosophers.

[Ut]

You can't damn science, and then turn around and use it as evidence. It just doesn't work that way.

You mean it doesn’t work that way here. Remember, in general, people believe what they want to believe. In fairness, I also am guilty too at times. This is one reason this board is so cool as it encourages scientific truth to be established.

No, I mean you just can't do it. It exposes one as a hypocrite. Watch.

I hate movies produced by Hollywood.
I especially hate mindless summer action flicks.
The Matrix rocks.

Someone is sure to step up and whip me like a gub'mint mule for saying something like that.

They may not see it that way, but that's pretty much what they're doing. A literal translation of the bible simply doesn't mix with science. It was compiled before the notion of science existed in the western world...maybe anywhere. The whole idea is akin to applying 2000 year old construction techiniques to modern skyscrapers, and expecting them to stand.

[George]

No, I mean you just can't do it. It exposes one as a hypocrite. Watch.

I hate movies produced by Hollywood.
I especially hate mindless summer action flicks.
The Matrix rocks.

Someone is sure to step up and whip me like a gub'mint mule for saying something like that.

They may not see it that way, but that's pretty much what they're doing.

Well, maybe not that bad. If you assume that close oribit gas giant's atmospheres can not survive stellar blasting for more than 6000 years, then, they do have a fairly strong argument. Is this assumption fair? I think not.

A literal translation of the bible simply doesn't mix with science. It was compiled before the notion of science existed in the western world...maybe anywhere. The whole idea is akin to applying 2000 year old construction techiniques to modern skyscrapers, and expecting them to stand.

Actually, concrete came around about that time. Lime and volcanic ash was mixed to help build the Coliseum. Steel I and H-beams, of course, came along a tad latter.

Hermunitics takes the context of the Biblical passages and discovers their intent based on what we know about the culture, cicumstances, language, etc. I am not a student of such but I happen to believe God works through the Bible just not in an irrational, as seen on this board, manner.

There are Creationists that do not support the young earth literal view. YEC, I think, represent a shrinking minority the more their scientific "facts" slip away toward Aristotle's locker.

[informant]

Hermunitics takes the context of the Biblical passages and discovers their intent based on what we know about the culture, cicumstances, language, etc.

Do you mean exegetics? And wouldn't history suffice for that?

[George]

Hermunitics takes the context of the Biblical passages and discovers their intent based on what we know about the culture, cicumstances, language, etc.

Do you mean exegetics? And wouldn't history suffice for that?

Hermeneutics and exegetics appear to be have the same basic definition. Again, I am not a student of either but highly respect their need to deal with literalists views.

I suppose history is all we have but it still requires interpretation of the content. Some "history" is false or at least extremely biased. Some "history" gets taken out of context. What does the term "day" mean, for example?

Since the topic involves YEC and gravity, here's this example.

Biblical history says God stopped the Sun and Moon on one day to support Joshua's battle. The original interpretation was the entire heavens were stopped. (Interestingly, around 400 AD St. Augustine used this point against Aristotle's view [which required all motion to stop if the heavens stopped], but with little success, apparently.) Today, we say the Sun comes up and goes down at certain times [even though we now know better]. Now that we know more, we could more easily interpret the event as the earth stopping, or slowing and not the heavens. It certainly make more sense to see it this way. However, it does not ensure believability? If history records start popping-up verifying the event, wouldn't that be something? 8) I suspect it could be explained (using my wild imagination) by a unique small whirlpool in the Higgs Ocean. If uniform acceleration(+/-) of the planet's rotation happened, maybe, only the lack of motion in the heavens would be noticeable. I am not suggesting, of course, this is what happened only to stir some interest in the plausibility of very difficult scriptural beliefs. (btw...the Higgs Ocean hypothesis will likely not be confirmable for a few more years and my understanding of it is essentially zero.)

YEC has not convinced me their strict interpretations can be explained rationally. In my opinion, their lack of success here on this board reflects negatively on other interpretations of the Bible as well. That’s why I get a little long winded, sorry.

[Yannox]

George wrote:
"Today, we say the Sun comes up and goes down at certain times [even though we now know better]."

Yes. After Relativity we do know better, and that saying that the Sun moves is literally, not just phenomenologically, true.

[milli360]

Yes. After Relativity we do know better, and that saying that the Sun moves is literally, not just phenomenologically, true.

That's a religious assertion, and it is out of place on this board.

Unless you are talking about the movement of the Sun as it orbits the galaxy, but I'm pretty sure you're not.

[informant]

Unless you are talking about the movement of the Sun as it orbits the galaxy[...]

And even then...

[George]

I'm still hopeful that someone will jump in on the issue of "hot" Jupiters. What can we say about them in regards to their atmosphere's longevity?

If Venus can have a heavy duty CO2 atmosphere, why would we doubt a planet with 1000x greater mass be able to hold its atmosphere?

[George]

I found this interesting....

A Jupiter-like world's migration is powered by the disk material outside the planet's orbit. The outer protoplanetary disk inexorably pushes the planet inward, even as the planet grows by accreting that outer material. Lecar and Sasselov showed that a planet can win its race to avoid destruction by eating the outer disk before the star eats it.

Our solar system differs from the "hot Jupiter" systems in that the race must have ended quite early. Jupiter migrated for only a short distance before consuming the material between it and the infant Saturn, bringing the King of Planets to a halt. If the protoplanetary disk that birthed our solar system had contained more matter, Jupiter might have lost the race. Then it and the inner planets, including Earth, would have spiraled into the Sun.

A Harvard article....>>> here <<<

Is this due to the tidal "friction" with the slower moving outer bodies?

They also say that it is too early to say if our solar system is rare.

[PhantomWolf]

Ooooooookayday. Nowsa messa be getting confuzzled.

Here it seems to be saying that the gas giants head in, towards the sun as they grow, but in my thread on neptune and Uranas, it was talked about them heading out, so which is it?

[George]

Ooooooookayday. Nowsa messa be getting confuzzled.

Here it seems to be saying that the gas giants head in, towards the sun as they grow, but in my thread on neptune and Uranas, it was talked about them heading out, so which is it?

I would guess Jupiter is bumping them out more than they are bumping Jupiter in. Hopefully, a better answer is jumping in soon.

[George]

Nice thread Phantom. However, I see your point about the obfuscation.

The Harvard article was recent (Dec. 2003), I think.

[Brady Yoon]

They spiral outwards becasue the sun is slowly losing mass due to nuclear fusion and solar winds.

[George]

They spiral outwards becasue the sun is slowly losing mass due to nuclear fusion and solar winds.

Nice. The converse makes sense as well as they would spiral inward during the early period of formation since the stellar host would be getting larger still. I presume.

I'm still curious if Jupiter plays much of a roll regarding Neptune and Uranus orbits.

[Brady Yoon]

They spiral outwards becasue the sun is slowly losing mass due to nuclear fusion and solar winds.

I know that it happends, but why? #-o

[George]

They spiral outwards becasue the sun is slowly losing mass due to nuclear fusion and solar winds.

I know that it happends, but why? #-o

Imagine what would happen if the Sun just vanished.