Love for Life

Written Debate
Written Debate

[Note: Due to copy and paste all mathematical formulations will be incorrect, please follow the link above to site the original documents. Arthur Cristian - Love For Life Campaign]

The issue is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution?

Dr. Brown’s standing offer for a strictly scientific, written, and publishable debate s on page 407 (see below).

Note that a few initially agreed to a strictly scientific debate, but later changed their minds, insisting they would only take part if the exchange included religion. One evolutionist is so upset that a written debate will not include religion that he now misleads by saying that Walt Brown has refused to debate him. (Correspondence in our files shows how he no longer wanted a strictly scientific debate after reading the 6th edition of this book.) Dr. Brown has consistently maintained his position for 28 years: the debate should be limited to scientific evidence. If someone says, “Walt Brown has refused to debate,” we suggest you ask to see that person’s signed debate agreement.

Recorded Phone Debate

For anyone who disagrees with the hydroplate theory (explained in Part II of this book), the recorded phone debate is appropriated. Anyone, regardless of their scientific credentials, can engage Dr. Brown, provided they have read the theory. For details, see page 406 (se below).

---------------

Debate?

The following offer is for a written, scientific debate on the creation-evolution issue. It addresses a longstanding desire by the public for a comprehensive and understandable comparison of the two main explanations for how everything began—a heated issue in which little constructive dialogue has occurred. Scientific disagreements can and should be discussed without acrimony.

Notice several things about this sincere and fair offer on pages 408–409. Evolutionists who disagree with these proposed debate procedures but wish to participate can propose their own suggestions for a written, strictly scientific debate. They must sign a statement, as I will, that they will abide by the editor’s decisions resolving disagreements about procedures.

However, the debate must be restricted to science and avoid religion, a broader, more complex, and less-structured subject. (Because I am not a theologian, I will not debate those topics. My focus is on the scientific evidence relating to origins.) Scientific methodology is also better understood by more people. Indeed, methods for reaching religious conclusions are diverse, subjective, and cultural. Religious disagreements have been with us for thousands of years. A purely scientific debate will be broad enough.

Many can participate on the evolutionist side. Only the lead evolutionist must hold a doctorate in either applied or basic sciences. Those who wish to participate but have no formal qualifications may recruit a lead evolutionist and offer their services to the evolutionist side. (A lack of recognized qualifications does not mean that a person has nothing to contribute. However, without them, many readers might dismiss that side’s case or blame a poor performance, not on a weak case, but on a lack of scientific qualifications.)

Once a lead evolutionist agrees to participate, we will search for and select an editor associated with a large, neutral publisher. I am confident that many publishers will be interested. Those invited may conclude that one or both sides have not demonstrated the ability to produce a credible, unemotional, and thorough case, understandable to most readers. If so, sales of the final, book-length debate would suffer. Sales, after all, are a publisher’s main concern. Editors and publishers may also conclude that one side is unprepared to address all relevant disciplines in the creation-evolution issue: life sciences, astronomical sciences, earth sciences, physical sciences, and their many subdisciplines. If so, the editor and publisher might ask one side to add qualified people to its side or withdraw.

The editor/publisher may require both sides of the debate to sign a contract to complete the manuscript as described in this offer. Because the publisher has “first right of refusal” and makes no commitment to publish the completed debate, the publisher has much to gain with little risk.

The purpose of this debate is:

a. To provide a vehicle for a dispassionate exchange of scientific data on both sides of a heated issue in which little constructive dialogue has occurred.

b. To make available to interested readers a clear enumeration in English of the major scientific evidence on both sides of the creation-evolution issue. Alternate interpretations and counterevidence will be contrasted. The disciplines will include the life sciences, astronomical sciences, earth sciences, and physical sciences (physics and chemistry).

The debate question is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? Each side will present the evidence it feels supports its view of origins and refutes the opposing explanation. Each side will summarize its position in 100 words or less and submit it with this signed paper. (Possible examples are given below.)

a. The Creation Position:

* Everything in the universe, including the stars, the solar system, the earth, life, and man, came into existence suddenly and recently, in essentially the complexity we see today.
* Genetic variations are limited.
* The earth has experienced a worldwide flood.

b. The Evolution Position:

* Over billions of years, the universe, the solar system, the earth, and finally life developed from disordered matter through natural processes.
* Random mutations and natural selection brought about present living kinds from single-celled life.
* All life has a common ancestor.

The debate will consist of only scientific evidence and the logical inferences from that evidence. Religious ideas and beliefs, while possibly correct, will not be allowed. The editor will strike such ideas from the record. The “no religion” rule would be violated by

a. referring to religious writings, such as the Bible or Koran,

b. ridiculing a deity or religious belief, or

c. using a religious writing to support a scientific claim. However, using scientific evidence to reach a conclusion that happens to correspond to a religious writing would not be a violation.

The credibility of creation and the flood, as a scientific matter, should rise or fall based on evidence, not the religious beliefs of either side of this debate. By scrupulously avoiding religion, public schools will be able to use any portion of this written debate.

Each side will define its terms, organize its evidence, and submit its arguments in whatever way will add clarity to its case.

Debate Procedures

1. One side, selected at random, will begin by nominating a willing editor who is associated with a large publisher. (A large publisher is defined as one with annual sales of more than 10 million U.S. dollars.) The other side can either accept that nomination or propose a different editor-publisher combination. This nomination process will continue until a side has received three nominations. Then it must accept one. The editor should have no strong opinions on the creation/evolution issue.

2. Companies specializing in book design will be asked to bid on all computer aspects of assembling a full-color book with an index. The editor and each side of the debate will vote to select the book’s designer. Before the book is published, the publisher will pay the editor and the book’s designer. If the book is never published, neither the editor nor book’s designer will be paid.

3. Each side of the debate will make four submissions of up to 100,000 words each. Each picture, figure, graph, or sequence of equations will be considered the equivalent of 200 words. Submissions, in a computer-readable form, will be sent by email at four-month intervals to the editor. The first submission is due four months after the editor is selected. After receiving both submissions, the editor will delete any religious ideas, unprofessional remarks, or comments that do not contribute to the debate’s intent. Within one month of receiving both submissions, the editor will simultaneously transmit both edited submissions to each side.

4. The editor will:

a. Make whatever rulings will help accomplish the debate’s purpose.

b. Resolve all procedural disagreements raised by either side.

c. After consulting with each side, select the style manual to be followed and provide formatting and layout guidance to the book designer.

d. Collect a color photograph of each participant and a biographical sketch of 100–200 words.

e. Direct each side, if needed, to address the more important unanswered points made by the other side, to include new issues raised during the last submission.

f. Terminate the debate if, in his or her opinion, one side is not participating adequately.

g. Organize and edit the final written product.

h. Write the book’s preface, including a description of these agreements and whether or not both sides followed them.

i. List for the publisher all of the book’s intended artwork, along with costs and copyright owners. The authors, operating within a budget established by the editor, are responsible for obtaining this information. The eventual publisher will purchase all artwork that is used, design the cover, and obtain an ISBN number.

5. Outside parties who contribute significant ideas, data, or logic to the written product must be cited. Those who contribute substantially to the debate may become joint participants. However, the lead debater for each side, whose signature appears below, is responsible for integrating all viewpoints for his or her side into one coherent case.

6. One side may feel that the other has not adequately documented a claim. If, after consulting with each side, the editor agrees, either the documentation must be provided or the claim withdrawn.

7. One side may feel that the other has quoted an authority out of context. If the editor concurs and the quotation is not modified or qualified, the editor may add a comment.

8. If both sides have difficulty finding certain references cited by the other side, the editor will direct that each side supply specific documents to the other. The editor, after considering the number and costs involved, will balance the burden placed on each side.

9. Each side will be allowed four extensions of one month each. The side requesting the extension should notify the editor and the other side as soon as possible but at least seven days before the submission is due.

10. If one side withdraws from the debate, as confirmed and explained in writing by the editor, the other side will have exclusive rights to publish any or all of the partially completed debate. The remaining side can include in the final published document the 100,000-word submission it was working on at the time of the withdrawal.

11. Within one month after receiving the fourth submission, each side can notify the editor if it feels new issues were raised in that submission. If the editor agrees, he or she may permit responses to those new issues.

12. Each side is encouraged correct errors in its case. Corrections or deletions of previously made arguments are allowed if they do not exceed that submission’s word limit. If, however, a correction is suggested by an opponent’s rebuttal, that error can be changed only as described in paragraph 13 below.

13. One month after the fourth submission has been made and all new issues have been answered, each side can propose that certain of its arguments be deleted or modified. This “bartering process” between debaters is intended to aid the reader by eliminating, in balanced fashion, earlier statements that are superfluous, inaccurate, or have been effectively rebutted. The editor will try to facilitate the bartering process.

14. The final form of the written debate should be as clear and readable as possible. Therefore, after the fourth submission, the editor will direct each side to gather into one coherent argument any scattered arguments dealing with a narrow topic. No new ideas can be added in this revision. In this way, readers can easily study and contrast opposing arguments. The completed written debate will be in the format directed by the editor and will include, as far as possible, the evidence and arguments placed side-by-side and point-by-point. It will consist of two main parts: (a) the evolution case with the creation rebuttals placed immediately below each argument, and (b) the creation case with the evolution rebuttals placed immediately below each argument. The book will begin with the shorter of the two cases.

15. One month after revisions are submitted, the editor will send a complete manuscript to each side along with a reasonable deadline for submitting final comments. After the editor finalizes the book, the publisher associated with the editor will have the “first right of refusal” to publish the written debate. If the publisher declines, each side may publish the debate or sell the publishing rights. Printed copies of the debate must contain the entire debate in final form, including the editor’s preface.

16. The two debaters, by mutual consent, can modify this agreement.

[INITIAL IF APPROPRIATE] I wish to propose a modification to the above procedures (1-16). However, I am willing to have the editor decide the matter after my opponent and I have presented our positions. I will abide by this ruling and participate in the written debate. My proposals are attached.

[Signed and dated by the principal debater for each side. List name, address, phone and FAX numbers, and email address.]

-----------

Technical Notes

Technical notes see: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes.html

How Long Would It Take the Moon to Recede from Earth to Its Present Position?

Evolutionists believe that (1) the Earth and Moon are 4.5 billion years old, and (2) with enough time bacteria will change into people. We have all heard some evolutionists say, “Given enough time, anything can happen.” This simplistic attitude overlooks two things. First, most conceivable events will not happen, because they would violate well-established laws of science.1 Second, if 4.5 billion years have elapsed, many things should have occurred that obviously have not. Rather than “time being the hero of the plot,” as one prominent evolutionist stated,2 immense amounts of time cause problems for evolution, as you will now see.

Most dating techniques, including the majority that indicate young ages, make the three basic assumptions given on page 31. The following dating technique has few, if any, major assumptions. It relies basically on only the law of gravity and one undisputed and frequently repeated measurement. We will look at the forces causing the Moon to spiral farther and farther away from Earth. Then we will see that this spiraling action could not have been happening for the length of time evolutionists say that the Earth and Moon have been around.

It will be shown that if the Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, it would move to its present position in only 1.2 billion years. Stated another way, if we could run time backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that ocean tides would sweep over all mountains. Astronomers who are aware of this problem call it “the lunar crisis.”3 Notice that this conclusion does not say that the Earth-Moon system is 1.2 billion years old; it only says that the Earth-Moon system must be less than 1.2 billion years old. Had the Moon begun orbiting Earth slightly inside the Moon’s present orbit, its age would be much less. Obviously, something is wrong with either the law of gravity or evolutionists’ belief that the Earth-Moon system is 4.5 billion years old. Most astute people would place their confidence in the law of gravity, which has been verified by countless experiments.

What causes tides? If the Moon’s gravity attracted equally every particle in and on Earth, there would be no tides. Tides are caused by slight differences in the Moon’s gravitational forces throughout Earth.4 As shown in Figure 180, the Moon pulls more on ocean particle A, directly under the Moon, than it does the center of Earth, C, because A is closer to the Moon. Therefore, A, pulled with slightly more force, moves proportionally farther toward the Moon than C, creating a tidal bulge. Likewise, water particle B, on the far side of Earth, is pulled with slightly less force than C. This difference pulls Earth away from B, creating the far tidal bulge.

tide1.jpg Image Thumbnail

Figure 180: Why the Moon Produces Tides on Earth.

How does the height of ocean tides relate to the Earth-Moon separation distance (R)? According to Newton’s law of gravitation, the Moon’s gravitational force pulls on Earth’s center of mass (C) with a force proportional to 1/R2. Water particle A directly under the Moon is one Earth radius (r) closer, so it is pulled by a force proportional to 1/(R-r)2. The difference between these forces is proportional to

tnmoon01.jpg Image Thumbnail

Because r is much less than R, the numerator on the right is almost 2rR and its denominator is almost R4. Therefore, the force difference producing tides and tide heights is approximately proportional to

tnmoon02.jpg Image Thumbnail

Because Earth’s radius (r) is constant, we can conclude that the height of the tides is proportional to 1/R3. For example, if the Earth-Moon distance suddenly doubled, tides caused by the Moon would be only 1/8th as high.5

How do tides affect the Moon’s orbit and the Earth’s spin rate? Surprisingly, the tidal bulges do not line up directly under the Moon as shown in Figure 180. This is because the spinning Earth carries the bulges out of alignment as shown in Figure 181. If Earth spun faster in the past, as we will see, the misalignment would have been even greater.

Let’s think of Earth as composed of two parts: a spherical portion (gray in Figure 181) and the tidal bulges—both water and solid tides.6 Gs is the gravitational force the Moon feels from the spherical portion of Earth. Because Gs is aligned with the centers of Earth and Moon, it does not alter the Moon’s orbit. However, the near tidal bulge, because it is offset, pulls the Moon in a direction shown by Gn, with a tangential component, Fn, in the direction of the Moon’s orbital motion. Fn accelerates the Moon in the direction it is moving, flinging it into an increasingly larger orbit. The far tidal bulge has an opposite but slightly weaker effect—weaker because it is farther from the Moon. The far bulge produces a gravitational force, Gf, and a retarding force on the Moon, Ff. The net strength of this accelerating force is (Fn - Ff). It can also be thought of as a thrust pushing the Moon tangential to its orbit, moving the Moon farther from Earth. This accelerating force allows us to calculate an upper limit on the age of the Moon. Today’s recession rate has been precisely measured at 3.82 cm/yr,7 but as you will see, it was faster in the past.

Conversely, the Moon’s net gravitational pull applies an equal and opposite force on Earth’s tidal bulges, slowing Earth’s spin. In other words, the Earth spun slightly faster in the past.

tide2.jpg Image Thumbnail

Figure 181: Rotated Tidal Bulges.

How does (Fn - Ff) relate to the Earth-Moon separation distance (R)? Using similar triangles,

tnmoon33.gif Image Thumbnail

where y is the misalignment distance of each tidal bulge, m is the Moon’s mass, mb is the mass of each tidal bulge, and G is the gravitational constant. Solving for (Fn - Ff)

tnmoon04.jpg Image Thumbnail

Equation 1b showed that the mass of a tidal bulge, mb, is approximately proportional to 1/R3, that is

tnmoon05.jpg Image Thumbnail

where C1 is the constant of proportionality. Therefore

tnmoon06.jpg Image Thumbnail

The velocity of the Moon (or any body in a circular orbit) is

tnmoon07.jpg Image Thumbnail

where M is Earth’s mass (or the mass of the central body).

Differentiating both sides with respect to time (t) and solving for tnmoon08.jpg Image Thumbnail gives

tnmoon09.jpg Image Thumbnail

Because the Moon’s tangential acceleration, tnmoon10.jpg Image Thumbnail , is equal to tnmoon20.jpg Image Thumbnail, which is known from equation (2)

tnmoon11.jpg Image Thumbnail

The slight displacement of the tidal bulge (y), as mentioned earlier, is proportional to the difference in the Earth’s spin rate (w) and the Moon’s angular velocity (wL). In other words,

tnmoon12.jpg Image Thumbnail

Substituting (4) into (3) and replacing the product of all constants by C gives

tnmoon13.jpg Image Thumbnail

C is found by using today’s values (subscript t)

tnmoon14.jpg Image Thumbnail

Kepler’s third law shows how (w - wL) varies with R:

tnmoon15.jpg Image Thumbnail

Applying the law of conservation of angular momentum gives

tnmoon16.jpg Image Thumbnail

where the constant L is the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system, and P is Earth’s polar moment of inertia. Combining (7) and (8) gives

tnmoon17.jpg Image Thumbnail

Substituting (6), (7), and (9) into (5) gives us the final equation. Because it has no closed-form solution, it will be solved by numerical iteration. The steps begin by setting the clock to zero and R to its present value of 384,400 km. Then time is stepped backwards in small increments (dt) until the centers of the Moon and Earth are only 15,000 km apart. Had this happened, ocean tides would have steadily grown to a ridiculous 12.8 km (8 miles) high and left marks on Earth that would be—but obviously are not—visible.8

tnmoon18.jpg Image Thumbnail

The QuickBasic program that solves this system of equations (shown on page 413) gives 1.2 billion years as the upper limit for the age of the Moon. (If the Moon began moving away from Earth 1.2 billion years ago, the Earth would have rotated once every 4.9 hours.)

Two complicated effects were neglected which would further reduce this upper limit for the Moon’s age.9

1. Evolutionists believe that the Earth formed by gravitational accretion of smaller bodies. If so, the impacts would have left a molten Earth. The Earth, throughout its history, would have been less rigid than it is today. Therefore, tidal bulges would have been larger, causing the Moon to spiral away from the Earth even faster than we calculated here.

2. Internal friction from tidal stretching of the solid Earth reduces Earth’s spin velocity. A greater value for w in the past would have increased the tidal misalignment and the Moon’s recession over what we assumed above. This would have been especially severe if the Earth had been less rigid in the past.

Incorporating these effects into the above analysis would make the upper limit on the Moon’s age even less than 1.2 billion years.

One might argue that 1.2 billion years ago the Moon was captured by the Earth or blasted from the Earth by an extraterrestrial collision.10 These events would have placed the Moon in a very elongated orbit. Today, Earth’s Moon and most of the almost 200 other known moons in the solar system are in nearly circular orbits.11 So many circular, or nearly circular, orbits are difficult to explain with any rigor.12 Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Moon (1) was captured, (2) was blasted from Earth by an extraterrestrial collision, or (3) somehow began orbiting Earth 1.2 billion years ago. Its orbit is too circular. (Other problems with evolutionary theories on the Moon’s origin are discussed under “Origin of the Moon” on page 26.)

Besides mountain-eroding tides, what other implications would a 1.2-billion-year-old Moon have for organic evolution and the age of Earth? Evolutionists claim that certain fossils are 2.8–3.5 billion years old. Had the Moon begun orbiting Earth 1.2 billion years ago, such fossils would have been pulverized by the havoc of gigantic tides. Evidently, the Moon did not originate near Earth. This further reduces the maximum age of the Moon.

All other dating techniques must assume how fast the dating clock has always ticked and the clock’s initial setting. For example, radiometric techniques assume, with much less certainty, that each radioactive isotope has a constant half-life. This analysis on the Moon’s recession assumes that only the law of gravity has been constant. Neither assumption can be proven, but there is no doubt which assumptions scientists would favor. If Newton’s law of gravitation did not hold in the past, our scientific foundations would crumble. However, if the Moon is less than 1.2 billion years old, a few evolutionary preconceptions must be discarded. But that’s progress.

PROGRAM

DEFDBL A–Z ‘DOUBLE PRECISION
dt = 1 ‘TIME INCREMENT (yr)
G = 6.64E-08 ‘THE GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT (km3 gm-1 yr-2)
LOP = 13486.23 ‘ANGULAR MOMENTUM OF EARTH-MOON SYSTEM / P (1/yr)
ME = 5.97E+27 ‘MASS OF THE EARTH (gm)
mm = 7.35E+25 ‘MASS OF THE MOON (gm)
P = 8.068E+34 ‘EARTH’S POLAR MOMENT OF INERTIA (gm km2)
R = 384400 ‘TODAY’S EARTH-MOON SEPARATION DISTANCE (km)
Rdot = 0.0000382 ‘TODAY’S RATE OF CHANGE OF R (km/yr)
w = 2301.22 ‘TODAY’S ANGULAR VELOCITY OF THE EARTH’S SPIN (rad/yr)
wL = 83.993 ‘TODAY’S ANGULAR VELOCITY OF THE MOON’S ROTATION (rad/yr)
t = 0 ‘TIME, THE NUMBER OF YEARS AGO (yr)

a = SQR(G * (ME + mm))
b = ME * mm * SQR(G / (ME + mm)) / P
C = Rdot * R ^ 5.5 / (w - wL) ‘FROM (6)

‘marching solution begins

DO
R = R - (C * (w - wL) / R^5.5) * dt ‘FROM (5)
IF R < 15000 THEN LPRINT “The upper limit on the Moon’s age is”; t; “years.”: END
w = LOP - b * SQR(R) ‘FROM (9)
wL= a * R ^ -1.5 ‘FROM (7)
t = t + dt
LOOP

OUTPUT

The upper limit on the Moon’s age is 1,198,032,532 years.

--------------------------------

References and Notes

1

. If you disagree, hold a rubber ball at arm’s length and release it. Of the many possible paths the ball could conceivably take (actually an infinite number), it will follow only one. As another example, compress the ball between two surfaces. Of the many possible ways the ball might deform, it will deform in a way that minimizes its stored energy. These are consequences of physical laws. Most things will not happen, even with an infinite amount of time. Protons will not turn into planets, plants, or people.

2

. George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 191, August 1954, p. 48.

3

. Two international conferences have tried to address this problem. [See P. Brosche and J. Sündermann, editors, Tidal Friction and the Earth’s Rotation (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1978) and P. Brosche and J. Sündermann, editors, Tidal Friction and the Earth’s Rotation II (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982).] The studies presented were of mixed quality; none considered the effect described in equations 4–9, and all left this recognized problem somewhat “out of focus.”

4

. We will consider only the Earth-Moon interaction. The Sun’s tidal effect is about half that of the Moon.

5

. If a force (or a change in force) is sufficiently small, the displacement it produces is proportional to the small force provided all states passed through are equilibrium states. For example, a small displacement of an extension spring is proportional to the force causing the displacement. This doesn’t hold if the spring breaks or stretches beyond its elastic limit. Tidal forces and displacements at a particular location are quite small.
u

Once R is fixed, the tide’s height at a specific location depends on many other factors, especially the shape of the coastline and seafloor. When high tides arrive at a coastline with a narrow, funnel-shaped bay, tide heights increase. At the Bay of Fundy in eastern Canada, tides rise and fall up to 48 feet twice daily. The average tidal amplitude on the open ocean is about 30 inches. Inland lakes have practically no tides. Lake Superior, for example, has 2-inch tides.

Tides also occur in the atmosphere and solid Earth. Relative to the center of the Earth, the foundation of your home (and everything around it) may rise and fall as much as 9 inches, depending on your latitude. Oceanic tides are the dominant cause of the Moon’s recession.

6

. Earth’s mountain ranges and equatorial bulge can be disregarded in this analysis, because their effects on the Moon’s recession cancel over many orbits.

7

. Laser beams have been bounced off arrays of corner reflectors left on the Moon by three teams of Apollo astronauts and the Russian Lunakhod 2 vehicle. Knowing today’s speed of light and the length of time for the beam to travel to the Moon and back gives the Moon’s distance. This has been successfully done more than 8,300 times since August 1986. Adjusting for many other parameters that affect the Moon’s orbit gives its recession rate: 3.82± 0.07 cm/yr. [See J. O. Dickey et al., “Lunar Laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo Program,” Science, Vol. 265, 22 July 1994, p. 486.] This recession was first recognized in 1754 by observing the Moon’s increasing orbital period. [For details see Walter H. Munk and Gordon J. F. MacDonald, The Rotation of the Earth (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 198.]

8

. How high would tides be if the Earth-Moon distance (R) were 15,000 km? (Whether or not the Moon would be pulled apart if it were ever that near Earth will be bypassed. It depends on many factors, including the Moon’s tensile strength, its rotation rate, and a subject called “Roche’s limit.”)

From equation 1b, the tidal height varies as 1/R3. The average height of tides on the open ocean today (with R = 384,400 km) is 30 inches or 0.76 meter. [See Endnote 5, above.] Therefore, if R were ever 15,000 km, the tidal height would be

tnmoon19.gif Image Thumbnail

Tides more than a mile high would occur if R < 30,000 km = 18,606 miles.

9

. In a much more detailed study which incorporated many more variables than I have, Touma and Wisdom arrived at a similar answer.

The evolution of the lunar semimajor axis presents the well-known time scale problem; the lunar orbit collapses only a little over a billion years ago. Jihad Touma and Jack Wisdom, “Evolution of the Earth-Moon System,” The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 108, No. 5, November 1994, p. 1954.

They then disregarded the consequences of their work by saying, “Presumably, the tidal constants have changed as the continents have drifted.”

Another problem they uncovered, but also chose to ignore, is that as the Moon approaches the Earth, its orbit becomes highly inclined to Earth’s equator. All evolution theories for the Moon have it beginning in the plane of Earth’s equator.

We are presented with an unresolved mystery. All theories of lunar formation require that formation take place in the equator plane, yet models of tidal evolution do not place the Moon there. Touma and Wisdom, p. 1955.

The answer to both these mysteries is that the Moon did not evolve.

10

. The other evolutionary theories on the Moon’s origin require it to have an age of 4.5 billion years. Because we have seen that the Moon cannot be older than 1.2 billion years, and it may be much younger, these other theories can be rejected.

11

. Today, the Moon’s eccentricity is 0.0549. A perfect circle has zero eccentricity. An extremely elongated elliptical orbit has an eccentricity of slightly less than 1.000. The ellipse in Figure 147 on page 264 has an eccentricity of about 0.65.

12

. Most people, even scientists, do not appreciate the difficulty of placing a satellite in a nearly circular orbit. For an artificial satellite to achieve such an orbit, several “burns” are required at just the right time, in just the right direction, and with just the right thrust. Most planets and many moons have nearly circular orbits. How could this have happened?

How Much Dust and Meteoritic Debris Should the Moon Have If It Is 4,600,000,000 Years Old?

meteoriticflux.jpg Image Thumbnail

Figure 182: Cumulative Meteoritic Flux vs. Particle Mass.

In 1981, I had a conversation with Dr. Herbert A. Zook of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). He had been intimately involved in estimating the thickness of the dust layer on the Moon before the first Apollo Moon landing. He also helped analyze the lunar material brought back from the Moon. Of the many interesting things he told me and gave me, one is critical in answering the above question.

NASA did not realize until the Moon dust and rocks were analyzed that only one part in 67 (or 1.5%) of the debris on the Moon came from outer space. The rest was pulverized Moon rock. In hindsight, this makes perfect sense. Meteorites that strike the Moon travel about 10 times faster than a bullet—averaging 20 km/sec. When they strike the Moon, they are not slowed down by an atmosphere (as on Earth), because the Moon has no atmosphere. Suddenly decelerating a meteorite traveling 20 km/sec to a “dead stop” would compress every atom in it and raise each particle’s temperature to many hundreds of thousands of degrees Celsius. Therefore, each projectile, regardless of size, instantly fragments and vaporizes upon impact, kicking up a cloud of pulverized Moon rocks. Vaporized portions of the meteorite then condense on the pulverized Moon rocks. This was discovered by slicing Moon rocks and finding them coated by meteoritic material—material rich in nickel. Pure Moon rocks have little nickel. In this way, NASA arrived at the factor of 67.1

The Data

How much meteoritic material is striking the Moon? More specifically, how many particles (N) greater than a certain mass (m) pass through a square meter on the Moon’s surface each second? This is called the cumulative flux. The data are usually reported on a coordinate system as shown in Figure 182. Logarithmic scales are used, because so many more smaller particles strike the Moon than larger particles.

Particle sizes vary widely. Solar wind blows most particles smaller than 10-13 gram out of the solar system. At the other extreme are large crater-forming meteorites. Measurements exist for the influx of meteoritic material in three regions across this broad range. The first will be called Region A; the second will be called Region C; and the last will be called Point E. Regions B and D are interpolated between these known regions and are shown as the blue dashed lines in Figure 182.

Region A is based on impacts registered on a satellite 0.98–1.02 astronomical units from the Sun.2 The curve for Region A is

log NA = –10.08 – 0.55 log m (10–13 < m < 10–6 gm)

Seismometers placed on the Moon provided the data for Region C.3 The results, again where NC is the number of particles per square meter per second that are greater than mass m, were

log NC = –15.12 – 1.16 log m (102 < m < 106 gm)

The equation for Region B is obtained by finding the line that joins the far right point in Region A with the far left point in Region C. That equation is

log NB = –14.77 – 1.33 log m (10–6 < m < 102 gm)

Point E is based on the fact that “there are 125 structures [craters] on the Moon with diameters greater than 100 km.”4 The diameter of a large meteorite, impacting at typical velocities, is about 12% of its crater’s diameter. If the density of meteorites is 3 gm/cm3, then the mass of a meteorite that could form a crater 100 km in diameter would be

tndust01.jpg Image Thumbnail

The Moon’s surface area is 3.8 × 1013 m2. If the largest 125 meteorites struck the Moon during the last 4.6 × 109 years, then the average cumulative flux at Point E is

tndust02.jpg Image Thumbnail

Point E connects to Region C by the curve

log ND = -18.91 - 0.53 log m (106 < m < 2.7x1018 gm)

The task now is to integrate the total mass of meteoritic material in Regions A, B, C, and D. To do this, we must convert these cumulative flux curves to the thickness of meteoritic material.

Integration

The general form of the cumulative flux curves is

log N = a + b log m

which is equivalent to

tndust03.jpg Image Thumbnail

where n(m) is the distribution function of the number of particles of size m.

Differentiating both sides of the right equation above with respect to m gives

10a (b) mb-1 = -n

Multiplying the number of particles (n) in a narrow mass range (dm) by the mass m and then integrating between m1 and m2 gives the total mass within that size range [m1–m2] that accumulates per square meter per second.

Within this mass range, the thickness (t) of pulverized meteoritic material that will accumulate on the Moon’s surface in 4.6 × 109 years, if the influx has always been at today’s rate, is

where

and the density of the pulverized lunar crust is 2 gm/cm3.

The total thickness of meteoritic material and pulverized Moon rock during 4.6 × 109 years is

(tA + tB + tC + tD) 67

where 67 is the ratio of the pulverized Moon rocks to meteoritic material. Table 27 gives the calculated values for the various thicknesses.

Table 27. Computed Thickness of Lunar Dust

Region

a

b

Mass Range (gm)

67 × tA–D (meters)

A

-10.08

-0.55

10-13 to 10-6

0.98

B

-14.77

-1.33

10-6 to 102

3.17

C

-15.12

-1.16

102 to 106

0.01

D

-18.91

-0.53

106 to 2.71 × 1018

310.86

Total Thickness = 315 . 02 m

We will disregard debris contributed by the region to the right of Point E.

Discussion

The lunar surface is composed of a powdery soil, an inch or so thick, below which are 4–10 meters of regolith.5 The Moon’s regolith consists of a range of particle sizes from fine dust up to blocks several meters wide. Meteoritic impacts overturn and mix this soil-regolith, each time coating the outer surfaces with very thin layers of condensed meteoritic material.

The expected thickness of the soil-regolith, as shown in Table 27, exceeds by about 50 times its actual thickness. (That table assumes that the Moon has been bombarded for 4.5 billion years at only today’s rate.) Most of this calculated thickness comes from Region D—meteorites larger than 106 grams but smaller than meteorites that can form craters 100 km in diameter. Why are the contributions from Regions A, B, and C so much smaller?

We made two faulty assumptions. First, we assumed that the influx of meteoritic material, for Regions A, B, and C, has always been what it is today. Obviously, as time has passed, the influx has decreased enormously because moons and planets sweep meteoritic material up or expel it beyond the Earth-Moon neighborhood. In other words, the influx of smaller dust particles in the past was much greater than satellite and moon-based seismometers have detected recently. Only Point E, which strongly influenced Region D, did not have that assumption. Point E is based on rocks that we know struck the Moon sometime in the past. Removing this assumption increases the expected thickness even more in all regions6 and would partly explain why Region D contributes so much to our total expected thickness.

Second, Table 27 assumes that the impactors fell steadily from outer space as they do today. However, the caption to Heat flow measurements on the Moon are also consistent with a recent cratering event. [See “Hot Moon” on page page 36 and the corresponding endnote on page 94.]What if all lunar impactors were of two types: primary and secondary? The primary impactors were large, extremely high-velocity rocks launched from Earth by the fountains of the great deep. Those impacts formed the giant, multi-ringed basins that dominate the Moon’s near side. The resulting debris and other space debris were secondary impactors. Consequently, primary impactors account for Point E, and secondary impactors account for much smaller and slower impactors. Therefore, Region D requires less impactor mass than our interpolation assumed.

Conclusion

The relative small amount of debris on the Moon is inconsistent with what we would expect if the solar system and Moon evolved over 4.6 × 109 years. It appears that two types of impacts have occurred:

a. a brief and recent interval of very high-velocity impacts by rocks launched from Earth, many of which were large, and

b. a diminishing number of smaller impacts, distributed today as shown in Regions A–C.

Several people have published attempts to answer the question of this technical note. Those efforts have usually (1) neglected the factor of 67, (2) ignored the large impacts shown by Point E, (3) assumed that the influx rate has always been what it is today, and (4) overlooked the relatively recent event that produced the meteorites, pummeled the Moon, and provided secondary impactors.

References and Notes

1

. This number has also been published.

The content of meteoritic material in mature lunar soils is about 1.5 percent. Stuart Ross Taylor, Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1975), p. 92.

2

. David W. Hughes, “Cosmic Dust Influx to the Earth,” Space Research XV, 1975, pp. 531–539.
u

More recent work has confirmed the cumulative mass flux in the 10-9 to 10-4 gram size range. [See S. G. Love and D. E. Brownlee, “A Direct Measurement of the Terrestrial Mass Accretion Rate of Cosmic Dust,” Science, Vol. 262, 22 October 1993, pp. 550–553.]

3

. Taylor, p. 84.

4

. Ibid., p. 93.

5

. Ibid., p. 58.

6

. Evolutionists admit that the flux rate has decreased, at least in Region C, by about a factor of 10.

This flux is about one order of magnitude less than the average integrated flux over the past three aeons, calculated on the basis of crater counts on young lunar maria surfaces. Ibid., p. 92.

Does Subduction Really Occur?

subductionequation.jpg Image Thumbnail

Figure 183: A Plate Trying to Subduct.

A plate, which may or may not be subducting, has a length L, thickness t, a unit depth, and density r2. It is inclined at an angle q below the horizon and is pushed by a compressive stress s through rock whose density is r1. Solid-to-solid friction, with a coefficient of m, acts to a depth h. The lithostatic pressure at a depth z is the mean density r1 times z times the acceleration due to gravity g. A drag force F opposes movement at the leading edge of the plate.

To make subduction as likely as possible, assume that:

* The thrusting force, s t, is perfectly aligned with the subduction angle q.
* The thrusting force is the maximum possible, but does not exceed the crushing strength of the subducting plate.
* The plate is denser than the mantle surrounding it. (This assumption is necessary or else the plate would not sink. Actually, the mantle, through which the plate must push, is much denser than the plate.)

For the plate to subduct, the sum of the forces down and to the left must exceed the sum of the forces up and to the right. That is:

{Net Thrust} + {Body Forces} >
{Friction on Top and Bottom Surfaces}

tnsubd02.jpg Image Thumbnail

In dimensionless form, this simplifies to

tnsubd03.jpg Image Thumbnail

The coefficient of static friction for rock against rock is about 0.6, and it is largely independent of the mineralogical composition and temperature up to about 350°C. Typical values for the above inequality are shown below.

tnsubd09.jpg Image Thumbnail

To make subduction much more likely, let’s assume that F = 0. Substituting these values in the above inequality gives the false statement that

tnsubd08.jpg Image Thumbnail

Because the inequality cannot be satisfied, a pushing force will not cause subduction. Remember, we made the very generous assumption that F=0. In other words, the blunt end of a plate 30–60 miles thick, and hundreds of miles wide, experiences no resistance as it is pushed through the Earth’s rock crust. (Even if the coefficient of friction were only 0.031, one-nineteenth of the above value and F=0, subduction could still not occur!)

Some believe that a pulling force causes subduction. They say, for example: “at a given depth, the subducting plate is colder, and therefore denser, than the mantle. The plate sinks through the mantle, like a dense rock falling through mud. As it falls, it pulls the rest of the plate.”

This proposal overlooks the fact that the tensile strength of rock is much less than its compressive strength. If the pushing force, described above, cannot cause subduction, a pulling force certainly will not. Therefore, subduction will not occur.

Can Overthrusts Occur? Can Mountains Buckle?

overthrusts.jpg Image Thumbnail

Figure 184: Frictional Locking of Two Slabs.

Slab A has a length, height, width, and density of L, h, w, and r, respectively. It rests on horizontal surface B and is pushed from the right. The pressure or force trying to move slab A over surface B exerts the maximum compressive stress, s, throughout the right end of slab A.

Let us make the very generous assumption that slab A is not bonded to slab B. Resisting the movement is the static friction at their interface having a coefficient of m. For motion to occur, the pushing force must exceed the resisting force, that is:

tnmtn01.jpg Image Thumbnail

Using the density of granite tnmtn02.jpg Image Thumbnailand the values for g, m, and s from page 418, Slab A will move only if

tnmtn03.jpg Image Thumbnail

In other words, if a slab of rock is longer than 8.2 km (about 5 miles), the compressive stress would exceed the rock’s maximum strength, so before movement could begin, crushing would occur, but only near the end being pushed. This result holds regardless of the slab’s other dimensions.

Conclusion: A rock slab longer than 5 miles cannot be pushed over unlubricated rock, so overthrusts would not occur in this fashion, and mountains would not buckle. Because both happened (for example, see Figure 48 on page 106), something lubricated the movement.

Unlike the “applied force” above, gravity applies a “body force” which acts on every atom in the rock. If gravity sliding accelerated a lubricated slab, crushing and buckling could occur (1) where the slab was relatively weak or thin or (2) near the points where the lubricant was first depleted, such as near subterranean pillars. Therefore, mountains could form within a continental-size plate.

Energy in the Subterranean Water

Extremely large explosions are often the result of a chain reaction—a rapid sequence of stages, each stage triggering the next and releasing greater magnitudes of energy. For example, a gun is fired by first applying energy to pull a trigger. That, in turn, releases the energy stored in a compressed spring which accelerates a firing pin into a percussion cap. Its explosion ignites the propellent that rapidly burns and generates gases that accelerate a bullet down a gun barrel.

A second but tragic example would be a large aircraft crashing into a tall building and releasing 5 × 1016 ergs of kinetic energy. The impact ignites the plane’s fuel. Within an hour, 5 × 1018 ergs of chemical energy are released. That heat weakens the building’s structure, causing it to collapse, releasing 1019 ergs of potential energy (about 25% of a small atomic bomb).

Likewise, the explosion of a hydrogen bomb is the end result of a rapid series of smaller explosions. First, a relatively tiny chemical explosion compresses nuclear fuel into a supercritical mass. This produces an atomic explosion, a fission reaction. That heat instantly ignites a thermonuclear, or fusion, reaction—a thousand times the energy of an atomic bomb.

An astounding, literally earth-shaking amount of energy accumulated in stages in the subterranean water before the flood. All that energy was finally released when the powerful fountains of the great deep launched water and rocks into space. Most of the rocks and water later merged and became comets and asteroids.1 The four stages were:

* tidal energy from Earth’s spin and the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Moon
* chemical energy from combustion in the supercritical water (SCW)
* potential energy residing in the dense preflood crust that lay above water
* nuclear energy as explained in the chapter “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity.” 2

These four energy sources will be briefly described. But first, we will estimate the total energy that had to be in the subterranean water to launch all the matter that escaped Earth’s gravity.

Energy Required

Table 28. Three Energy Requirements

Total Mass

M

(gm)

Average Launch Velocity

v

(km/sec)

Kinetic Energy

E = 1/2 M v 2

(ergs)

Comets

5.8 × 1021

33.6

3.3 × 1034

Asteroids

2.6 × 1024

11.2

1.6 × 1036

Irregular Moons

1.3 × 1023

11.2

8.2 × 1034

Note: Earth’s escape velocity
is 11.2 km/sec or 7.0 mi/sec.

TOTAL :

1.7 × 1036

The launched material includes what later became comets, asteroids, and the irregular moons3 of the giant planets—moons that I maintain are captured asteroids. Table 28 contains these estimates, some of which were justified in the chapters explaining the origin of comets and asteroids.

Perhaps 10 times more energy than 1.7 × 1036 ergs was needed (1) because other mass was launched besides that in comets, asteroids, and irregular moons, (2) because of the inefficiency of the launch mechanism, and (3) because some heat was lost by conduction into the chamber’s ceiling and floor.4 Let’s assume that the total energy required was 1.7 × 1037 ergs.5 Since this energy was released over many weeks, it is more accurately described as coming from an “engine”—an “Earth-size nuclear engine” (as you will see)—rather than an explosion.

Because the energy needed to launch the fragments that later merged to became asteroids is so much greater than the energy needed to launch the fragments that became comets or irregular moons, the methods for calculating the mass of all asteroids deserves special comment. In the early 1990s, much to the dismay of evolutionist astronomers, moons were discovered around some asteroids. Before then, asteroid mass could be estimated only by multiplying an asteroid’s volume by its assumed density. Such assumptions produced considerable error, because from Earth each asteroid looked like a big, solid rock, not a flying rock pile containing ice and voids. Now that moons can be observed orbiting many asteroids, their masses and extremely low densities6 can be directly calculated. Using their average density, the mass of all other asteroids can be more accurately estimated. While not all asteroids have been identified, the volumes of the largest thousand or so have been measured. Statistically, their size distribution shows that the smallest asteroids, although numerous, contribute relatively little to the total mass of all asteroids.

Energy Available

What provided the needed 1.7 × 1037 ergs of energy? Notice that the energy released by each of the first three sources described below is huge, but each is relatively small compared to 1.7 × 1037 ergs. Nevertheless, each of these three sources would trigger the next source. Finally, the size of the fourth source (nuclear energy) was clearly sufficient. As will be explained, it provided at least 4.8 × 1037 ergs of energy!

Before proceeding further, carefully consider:

* the dozens of evidences presented on pages 258–308 showing that meteorites and the particles that merged to become comets and asteroids came from Earth and that the standard explanations for those bodies are, in so many ways, unworkable.
* the many evidences in “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity”2 chapter showing that powerful pressure cycles from the fluttering crust generated, via the piezoelectric effect, extreme voltages that exceeded electrical break down within rock. The resulting electrical surges (akin to bolts of lightning passing through rock and highly conductive salt water) rapidly produced Earth’s radioactivity and, at today’s rates, billions of years’ worth of daughter products. As this chapter explains and calculations and experiments show, this is much more realistic than and far superior to the standard, vague explanation for the origin of Earth’s radioactivity—an explanation without experimental support.

What were the four sources of energy?

Tidal Pumping. Twice a day, tides in the subterranean chamber compressed and stretched the pillars. As pillars were heated, the water’s temperature rose.7 Quartz, which occupies about 27% of granite by volume, readily dissolves in hot water. Consequently, more and more quartz dissolved as temperatures rose, so the pillars and lower crust increasingly looked like sponges. Hot, salty—and, therefore, electrically conducting—supercritical water (SCW) filled these interconnected pockets that once held quartz crystals. (That SCW would later remove staggering amounts of nuclear energy that would be generated in the lower crust over a period of weeks.) [See page 112.]

Burning.8 There was also fire in the water. Supercritical water at high pressures and temperatures will release oxygen and spontaneously burn (oxidize) fuel available in the surrounding chamber structures: carbon, sulfur, and many metals that are easily dissolved in SCW. The heat released raises the temperature of adjacent water, so it also spontaneously burns. With an enormous supply of SCW and fuel in the subterranean chamber, this chemical source of energy was also large.

FireinWater.jpg Image Thumbnail

Figure 185: Burning in Supercritical Water. You are looking through a thick, sapphire window at combustion in supercritical water (SCW) at 450°C (842°F) and 1,000 bars (14,500 psi). The tube at 6 o’clock is injecting oxygen into the SCW at 3 mm3/sec. Oxygen unites with methane (CH4) that is dissolved in the SCW and releases heat which, in turn, releases more oxygen in the water (H2O --> H + OH --> 2 H + O). The resulting spontaneous combustion produces CO2 and excess heat as long as fuel (in this case, carbon) is available.9

At slightly higher temperatures, Russian scientists have duplicated the above without injecting oxygen and have shown how SCW, in the presence of fuel, readily explodes from the chamber.10 Sudden jumps of 670°C (1,238°F) in temperature and 210 bars (3,000 psi) in pressure were measured.

After the Earth’s crust ruptured, a similar, but vastly larger, long-duration explosion occurred for days in the subterranean chamber as the fluttering crust settled to the chamber floor. Most of the energy came not from chemical energy (as described above) but from nuclear energy—atomic nuclei that quickly decayed and released their binding energy. Those who ignore the flood will falsely conclude that all Earth’s products of radioactive decay must have accumulated at the very slow rate they do today. Ergo, the Earth is billions of years old.

Some chemical elements in the chamber’s spongelike rocks that would dissolve, burn, and release large amounts of heat included aluminum (471 kcal/mole), iron (267.0 kcal/mole), calcium (151.9 kcal/mole), magnesium (143.8 kcal/mole), titanium (109.0 kcal/mole), sodium (99.4 kcal/mole), carbon (94.0 kcal/mole), and sulfur (71.0 kcal/mole). Various compounds would also burn. Burning hydrogen (H) to produce water (H2O) did not result in a net increase in energy, because the energy gained (57.8 kcal/mole) equaled the energy spent in dissociating the oxygen in the first place.

We do not know how much oxidation occurred, although products of that burning were swept up to the Earth’s surface with the escaping flood water. They became all the Earth’s ores, such as iron ore. Because ore deposits are scattered worldwide, burning probably occurred throughout the subterranean chamber. As explained in the chapter on “The Origin of Limestone” on pages 216–221, the subterranean chamber had a vast amount of dissolved CO2, the main product of burning (or oxidizing) carbon.

Potential Energy. The preflood granite crust had an average thickness, t, and a density, rg. It lay above a water layer of density, rw, and volume, V. This gave the crust a potential energy, Ep, of

Ep = t V g (rg - rw)

where g is the acceleration of gravity. During the flood, that huge energy was released as the hydroplates sank and the subterranean waters violently escaped upward. If

t = 1.6 × 106 cm V = 7.15 × 1023 cm3

rg = 2.8 grams/cm3 g = 980 cm/sec2

rw= 1.14 grams/cm3 (liquid water is compressed by about 14% at the pressures in the subterranean chamber), then

Ep = 1.6 × 106 × 7.15 × 1023 × 980 (2.8-1.14) = 1.86 × 1033 ergs

Nuclear Energy. Thermal energy from tidal pumping and oxygen burning increased the pressure in the subterranean chamber and weakened the pillars and crust. Once the crust ruptured, the potential energy was released, the subterranean water erupted, and dramatic electrical events occurred that are described in “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity.”2 For reasons explained in that chapter, most of the new, unstable radioisotopes that rapidly formed also quickly decayed. In the process, gigantic amounts of heat were released in the SCW.

How much nuclear energy entered the subterranean water? Various nuclear reactions produced fast neutrons. Each fast neutron that was thermalized by the water delivered about 2 MeV of energy (or 3.2 × 10-6 ergs). A hydrogen atom (1H) that absorbed a fast neutron became heavy hydrogen (2H), also called deuterium. One out of every 6,400 hydrogen atoms in our oceans is heavy hydrogen. Our oceans have 1.43 × 1024 grams of water. For every 18 grams of water (1 mole) there are 6.023 × 1023 (Avogadro’s number) water molecules—each with two hydrogen atoms. The comet chapter (pages 258–288) explains why Earth’s heavy hydrogen was concentrated in the subterranean chamber at the beginning of the flood. Therefore, the nuclear energy that was added to the subterranean water over several weeks was:

TNENER07.jpg Image Thumbnail

Other products of nuclear decay would have added additional energy to the subterranean water, so the above is a conservative estimate of the nuclear energy that was added to the subterranean water in weeks.

Those who try to estimate the total energy that has been released by radioactive decay on Earth often make several errors. Some assume that most geothermal energy flowing up to the Earth’s surface is from nuclear decay over billions of years. As the radioactivity chapter explains, relatively little geothermal heat is from nuclear decay. Most geothermal heat is due to electrical surges at the beginning of the flood and the tectonics at the end of the flood. [The tectonic events are explained on pages 140–163.] A second common error is assuming that the total heat released by accelerated decay equaled the annual radioactive heat generated in the Earth’s crust today multiplied by hundreds of millions of years.

Of course, many uncertainties exist which make exact calculations impossible. What were the initial and final temperatures in the subterranean chamber? What was its actual volume and depth below the Earth’s surface? What were the sizes, shapes, and numbers of the pillars? How much combustion occurred in the SCW? How much energy was supplied to the escaping subterranean water by all nuclear reactions, including fissions, captures, and gamma, alpha, and beta decay? Further research may narrow these uncertainties.

Conclusion

While it is shocking at first to consider—and try to grasp—the vast amount of energy in the subterranean chamber, one should also reflect on the answers it provides.

1. Comets and Asteroids. Pages 258–308 cite dozens of evidences showing that the material that merged in the years after the flood to become comets and asteroids was launched from Earth. The energy in the chamber was sufficient for that task.

2. Hot Origin for Cold Comets. Tiny rocks and dust recovered from comet Wild 2 (pronounced “Vilt 2”) in 2004 were found to have been forged in white-hot heat. This contradicts the standard story, taught since 1950, that comets formed in the coldest portion of the solar system.11 (In 2005, the Deep Impact space mission made similar discoveries in comet Tempel 1.) These rocks should not have been crystalline, and yet they were crystalline and earthlike, as I explained they would be in the 7th Edition (2001, page 201). The subterranean chamber provided both the white-hot heat, launch energy, and crystalline material for comets, asteroids, and meteoroids. [See “Deep Impact Mission” and “Stardust Mission” on page 264 and #7 on page 274.]

3. Heavy Hydrogen. Normal hydrogen (1H) has a nucleus containing only one proton. Hydrogen that has absorbed one neutron is deuterium (2H); hydrogen that has absorbed two neutrons is tritium (3H). How were our oceans exposed to the neutron flux needed to form this heavy hydrogen?

Comets contain 20–100 times the concentration of heavy hydrogen as interstellar space and the solar system in general. Why are comets so rich in heavy hydrogen? Comets also contain water twice as rich in heavy hydrogen as Earth’s surface waters. Therefore, comets did not provide the Earth with its water. Actually, all the water in comets and about half the water in our oceans came from the subterranean chamber—a chamber that absorbed a high flux of neutrons from nuclear reactions as the flood began. Therefore, our oceans contain considerable heavy hydrogen, and comets have twice that concentration.

4. Irregular Moons. Most astronomers recognize that irregular moons are captured asteroids. But, how were so many captured? Invoking long periods of time will not work, because those moons are being destroyed or stripped from their planets too rapidly. The same energy that launched the particles that later merged to become comets and asteroids also scattered an ocean of water vapor into the solar system. That gas provided the aerobraking that allowed planets, large asteroids, and perhaps comets to capture moons. Today, that water vapor is no longer in interplanetary space, so aerobraking is not possible. This is why astronomers are baffled, but the hydroplate theory explains why there are so many irregular moons.

5. Ore Deposits. Conventional geologists have difficulty explaining the origin of Earth’s ore deposits. “Ores of sufficient richness to be extracted have required very special geologic processes to come into existence.”12 What were those special conditions and processes that concentrated large ore deposits?13 Beyond vague references to “hydrothermal solutions,” evolutionists can only say that ores must have formed slowly in the distant past. However, diverse ore deposits are not forming today—even slowly. Spontaneous combustion in the SCW under the crust produced Earth’s ores. Escaping flood waters swept those ores up to the Earth’s surface.

6. Gold Deposits. Why are gold veins at the Earth’s surface? If extremely hot water (932°F or 500°C) circulated under the crust, gold in high concentrations could go into solution. If the solution then came up to the Earth’s surface fast enough, little gold would precipitate as the water’s pressure dropped. About 250 cubic miles of water must have burst forth to account for the gold found in just one gold mining region in Canada.14 With less extreme pressure-temperature conditions, even more water must come up faster to account for the Earth’s gold deposits. These are hardly the slow, uniformitarian processes that evolutionists visualize. When the hydroplates crashed, vast amounts of hot water still under the crust burst up through faults and deposited concentrated minerals, including gold.

About 40% of all gold mined in the world is from the Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa. This gold, deposited in compressional fractures within the basin, precipitated from water whose temperature exceeded 300°C.15

7. The Quartz Problem. Geologists acknowledge their inability to explain where enough silica could come from to cement most of the Earth’s sediments into rocks. This is called “the quartz problem.” [See page 216.] SCW dissolved much of the quartz in the rocks bordering the subterranean chamber. That dissolved silica, cooling at the Earth’s surface soon after the flood, cemented rocks—and also petrified wood.

8. Salt Deposits. Thick salt deposits on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean were not formed by evaporation but by hot brines expelled from deep in the Earth. Among the many reasons for this conclusion are the absence of organic remains in those deposits and the presence of ore minerals that are not found in evaporating basins today.16 Again, hot, erupting, mineral-rich subterranean water explains what we see.

9. Geothermal Heat. As one descends deeper into the Earth, temperatures increase. Many scientists and laymen believe that Earth’s geothermal heat is left over from the formation of the Earth by meteoritic bombardment. A few simple calculations show that if Earth formed that way, too much heat would have been released; the entire Earth would have melted several times over. [See Endnote 45a on page 78 and “Melting the Inner Earth” beginning on page 427.] Others believe that billions of years of radioactive decay produced the temperature patterns we see inside the Earth. The flaws in this thinking are explained in “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity.”2

10. Understanding Accelerated Decay. For more than 20 years, I and a few other creationists have cited evidence that the rates of radioactive decay were much faster sometime in the past. In 2005, some creationists, citing a few additional evidences, correctly reached the same conclusion. However, they did not know what caused accelerated decay or when it happened: during the creation,17 the fall, or the flood. They realized that the decay, whenever it happened, would have produced a vast amount of heat—enough, they thought, to melt much of the Earth and evaporate all the oceans. Because this did not happen, they reasoned that a miracle occurred or some strange, new physics removed the heat. (Miracles should not be invoked just to solve a scientific problem.)

In fact, normal physics was involved. These researchers never addressed the larger question: What was the origin of Earth’s radioactivity? They were also unaware of all the preflood subterranean water and why it became electrically conductive SCW and increasingly permeated the lower crust. That SCW absorbed most of the nuclear energy and converted it primarily to kinetic energy, without a huge rise in temperature. Furthermore, the extremely powerful fountains of the great deep expelled most of that energy into outer space. Some of these researchers completely missed the cataclysmic nature of the flood’s beginning—saying that when, “on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open” (Genesis 7:11), the fountains were simply like geysers. These individuals also did not realize that the hydroplate theory explains the accelerated decay and energy removal, and places that decay at the beginning of the flood.18

The origin and consequences of so much energy in the subterranean water is admittedly a startling new idea. Grasping and interrelating the many evidences will require a period of thoughtful reevaluation and reflection by each reader.

References and Notes

1

. Large rocks ejected from Earth had correspondingly large spheres of influence which expanded as other matter—aided by water vapor and aerobraking—gently merged around those “rock seeds.” This allowed the capture of even more matter, eventually forming “fluffy” comets and very low density asteroids. [Spheres of influence are explained on page 261.]

2

. “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity” chapter is not yet part of this book. Because of its highly technical nature, the material will be publicly released only when I can have a very high degree of confidence in the accuracy of all its details. The chapter’s summary (abstract) reads as follows:

As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated (via the piezoelectric effect) gigantic surges of electricity within the crust and subterranean water. For weeks, a “storm” of electrons collided with atomic nuclei, releasing a host of other subatomic particles and forming earth’s radioactivity. Rapid decay—and its vast heat generation from this continuing bombardment of unstable nuclei—followed. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale.

The standard explanation for earth’s radioactivity claims that it evolved in stars and their exploded debris. Much later the earth formed from that debris. Few of these steps can be demonstrated experimentally. Observations on the earth and in space support the hydroplate explanation and refute the evolution explanation.

An advanced draft of this chapter can be requested by anyone who

a. has a strong background in nuclear physics,

b. has read the entire hydroplate theory, and

c. will provide a private, written critique of the chapter.

Those who do not meet the first criterion above will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Interested individuals should email their requests to:

feed...@creationscience.com.

3

. Irregular moons usually have high eccentricity and inclination and very low mass. Most astronomers recognize that irregular moons are captured asteroids, but admit that captures are too improbable. So, how did they occur?

Pages 290–308 explain how, for years after the flood, the radiometer effect and aerobraking, via the abundant water vapor in the solar system, produced those captures. At least 43 moons in the solar system are irregular; one of the largest is Saturn’s Enceladus, whose “strange behavior” is explained on page 296. Mars’ two moons, Phobos and Deimos, are probably captured asteroids.

4

. Some heat would have been conducted into the ceiling and floor of the subterranean chamber. However, the rate of heat loss from the chamber would have steadily diminished with time, because the deeper the heat penetrated into the rock, the more resistance (or insulation) the rock provided.

More specifically, the heat flux from a hot fluid in contact with a cold, semi-infinite solid (both at constant temperatures) will diminish as the inverse square root of time. To see why, consult a basic textbook on heat transfer.

5

. A 1-megaton hydrogen bomb releases almost 5 × 1022 ergs of energy. Therefore, the release of 1.7 × 1037 ergs is the equivalent of exploding 300 trillion hydrogen bombs! However, most of the energy in the subterranean water was generated continuously over many weeks (not one big explosion) and was focused up through the rupture and expelled into space. Comets, asteroids, irregular moons, and meteoroids have considerable kinetic and potential energy.

6

. The Cassini mission to Saturn flew near enough to Saturn’s irregular moon, Hyperion, to measure its extremely low density. (Hyperion, with a density of 0.544 gm/cm3, would float high in water if it were placed in a very large bathtub.) Hyperion also contains organic matter. What do you suppose was the origin of this organic matter? Earth would be a good guess. [See P. C. Thomas et al., “Hyperion’s Sponge-Like Appearance,” Nature, Vol. 448, 5 July 2007, pp. 50–53.]

The low densities of comets and asteroids are not surprising when one understands how they formed. Consider that:
v

“[Comet Temple 1 is] the size of a mountain held together with the strength of the meringue in a lemon meringue pie.” Carey Lisse as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Deep Impact,” Science News, Vol. 168, 10 September 2005, p. 169.
v

“[The comet’s] structure is more fragile than that of a soufflé ....” Jay Melosh as quoted by Ron Cowen, Ibid., p. 168.

7

. Earth’s polar moment of inertia is 8.068 × 1044 gm cm2. Of course, we do not know how much Earth’s spin slowed during this period of tidal pumping. However, if the Earth slowed from a period of 23 hours per day to today’s 24 hours per day, the energy lost from Earth’s rotational kinetic energy and gained as heat in the subterranean water would have been

tnenergy35.jpg Image Thumbnail

8

. Burning in this context is defined as the rapid chemical reaction of oxygen with a fuel, releasing heat and light.

9

. E. U. Franck, “Experimental Studies of Compressed Fluids,” High Pressure Chemistry and Biochemistry, editors R. van Eldik and J. Jonas (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1987), pp. 93–116.
u

E. U. Franck, “Fluids at High Pressures and Temperatures,” Pure & Applied Chemistry, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1987, pp. 25–34.

10

. “It was established that water participates in the conversion process on a chemical level: in particular, oxygen from water molecules is involved in the formation of carbon oxides. Even in the absence of added molecular oxygen, the process of naphthalene [C10H8] and bitumen in a certain temperature interval exhibited an exothermal character. Upon adding O2 into SCW, the oxidation reaction may proceed in a burning regime with self-heating [spontaneous combustion] of the mixture. Under certain conditions, the self-heating process may lead to the thermal explosion effect accompanied by ejection of the substance from the reactor, which is explained by the high rate of hydrocarbon burning in SCW.” A. A. Vostrikov et al., “The Effect of Thermal Explosion in a Supercritical Water,” Technical Physics Letters, Vol. 27, No. 10, 2001, p. 847.
u

For example, two reactions were:

C10H8 + H2O ---> C6H6 + CH4 + CO + 0.2C10 + 2.5 kcal/mole

CO + H2O ---> CO2 + H2 + 5.7 kcal/mole

11

. “Scientists analyzing the first samples returned from a comet announced startling news this week. They are finding not the unprocessed [noncrystalline] ‘stardust’ thought to have glommed together in the frigid fringes of the early solar system, but bits of [crystalline] rock forged in white-hot heat.” Richard A. Kerr, “Minerals Point to a Hot Origin for Icy Comets,” Science, Vol. 311, 17 March 2006, p. 1536.

12

. Arthur N. Strahler, Physical Geology (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1981), p. 551.

13

. Before the flood, some men learned how to forge implements of bronze (about 88% copper and 12% tin) and iron. This noteworthy achievement (Genesis 4:22) involved more than just isolating copper, tin, and iron from rocks; it also involved combining them in solid solutions to achieve superior chemical, mechanical, and physical properties. Today, we have very large, already concentrated ore deposits of many other metals besides copper, tin, and iron.

14

. Robert Kerrich, “Nature’s Gold Factory,” Science, Vol. 284, 25 June 1999, pp. 2101–2102.

15

. A. C. Barnicoat et al., “Hydrothermal Gold Mineralization in the Witwatersrand Basin,” Nature, Vol. 386, 24 April 1997, pp. 820–824.
u

Robert R. Loucks and John A. Mavrogenes, “Gold Solubility in Supercritical Hydrothermal Brines Measured in Synthetic Fluid Inclusions,” Science, Vol. 284, 25 June 1999, pp. 2159–2163.

16

. “Salt deposits in deep oceanic areas are considered to be deposits from hot brine originating at great depths in the earth during tectonic movements.” V. I. Sozansky, “Origin of Salt Deposits in Deep-Water Basins of Atlantic Ocean,” The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Vol. 57, March 1973, p. 589.
u

“Salt is not an evaporitic formation or a derivative from volcanic rock; it is a product of degasification of the earth’s interior. The salt precipitated from juvenile hot water which emerged along deep faults into a basin as a result of change in thermodynamic conditions. ... the water-salt composition of the ocean and atmosphere is the product of degassing of the earth’s interior.” V. B. Porfir’ev, “Geology and Genesis of Salt Formations,” The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Vol. 58, December 1974, p. 2544.

17

. From a biblical perspective, harmful radioactive decay did not exist at the end of creation, because all God made was “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

18

. Larry Vardiman, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Steven W. Boyd, Eugene F. Chaffin, Donald B. DeYoung, D. Russell Humphreys, and Andrew A. Snelling, “Summary of Evidence for a Young Earth from the RATE Project,” Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, editors Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 2005), pp. 735–772. [This was a highly publicized, $1,000,000+, 8-year research project. Because these researchers mistakenly say there is a heat problem, some people believe that the Earth required millions of years to cool.]
u

Two coauthors of the above study were unaware of the hydroplate explanation for heat removal discussed in the previous pages.
v

“I also pointed out that heat is not merely a problem for accelerated decay, but also for all Creation or Flood models I know of.” D. Russell Humphreys, “Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” Ibid., p. 68.
v

“All creationist models of young earth history have serious problems with heat disposal.” Andrew A. Snelling, “Radiohalos in Granites,” Ibid., p. 184.

Melting the Inner Earth

Today, the Earth’s density at any depth, z, is well known. Some values are given in column G of Table 30.1 Based on those values, the mass, acceleration due to gravity, polar moment of inertia, and gravitational potential energy are calculated in columns H–K for successive spherical shells. The potential energy of a shell of mass m and radius r is

tnmelt02.jpg Image Thumbnail

where G is the gravitational constant, g is the acceleration due to gravity at r, and Mi is the mass inside the shell.

Preflood values of density (column B) can be estimated by the formula

density = a + bz + cz2 + dz3

where a = 2.840, b = 1.6362 × 10-3, c = 5.4000 × 10-8, and d = -1.1587 × 10-11. These coefficients were selected to satisfy the following constraints: the flood did not appreciably change the mass of the Earth,2 the preflood density at the Earth’s surface and center was what it is today (2.840 and 12.460 gm/cm3, respectively), pressure and, therefore, density increased smoothly with depth, and the polar moment of inertia allowed the Earth to rotate 360 times per year. (Endnotes 23–27, beginning on page 159, justify a 360-day year before the flood.) Other functional relationships between preflood density and depth that satisfied these same constraints would not greatly alter the following conclusions.

As explained on pages 140–163, during the flood, mass shifts within the Earth generated internal friction, heating, and melting. Melting, especially toward the center of the Earth where pressures (and thus frictional heating) were greatest, was followed by gravitational settling of the denser minerals and chemical elements. Rock that melted below the crossover depth contracted. [See pages 145–146.] This produced further mass shifts (faulting), frictional heating, melting, and gravitational settling. Most of the potential energy lost by the Earth—the difference in the sums of columns F and K—was converted to heat by gravitational settling.3

(2.489 × 1039 – 2.460 × 1039) = 29.0 × 1036 ergs

Once slippage began inside the earth, the potential energy lost by frictional melting eventually generated about 5 times more heat energy in the Earth’s core through gravitational settling.4 This created a runaway situation: more slippage and melting produced more heating by gravitational settling, which then produced even more slippage, etc. Within months, most of the inner earth melted. That melting, gravitational settling, and compression of magma in the outer core is shown by the sharp density discontinuity highlighted in yellow in Table 30 (column G) and by Earth’s extremely strong magnetic field. [See “The Origin of Earth’s Magnetic Field” on page 144 for an explanation.]

All this heat, released within months inside Earth, could provide almost 3 billion years’ worth of the present heat flux at the Earth’s surface (1.0 × 1028 ergs/year).

How does the heat released by gravitational settling (almost 29.0 × 1036 ergs) compare with the heat needed to form Earth’s present-day core? It partially depends on the initial temperatures of the denser particles inside the Earth before they fell toward the Earth’s center to become the inner and outer core. However, before gravitational settling could begin, those temperatures would have been raised to near the local melting temperatures. Particles that melted after they fell formed the liquid outer core; denser particles that did not melt or that solidified under the great pressure near the Earth’s center formed the solid inner core.

Anderson gives the following estimates for the thermal properties of the inner and outer core. (The masses for inner and outer core are derived from Table 30.)

Table 29. Some Properties of the Earth’s Core5

Property

Inner Core

Outer Core

Mass (gm)

0.132 × 1027

1.831 × 1027

Mean Melting Temperature (K)

6,575

3,800

Specific Heat (erg/gm/K)

5 × 106

5 × 106

Heat of Fusion (erg/gm)

4 × 109

To form today’s inner core requires approximately

[5 × 106 × (6,575 – 3,800)] × 0.132 × 1027 = 1.832 × 1036 ergs

To form today’s outer core requires approximately

(4 × 109 ) × (1.831 × 10 27 ) = 7.324 × 1036 ergs

Therefore, the heat released by gravitational settling (almost 29.0 × 1036 ergs) exceeded that needed to form the Earth’s inner and outer core (9.156 × 1036 ergs). Temperatures quickly rose near the center of the Earth. Notice that the heat released by gravitational settling, if evenly distributed throughout the Earth, might melt the entire Earth, whose mass is 5.976 × 1027 grams.

29.0 × 1036 ergs > (~ 4 × 109 ) × (5.976 × 1027 ) ergs

Table 30 allows two other important conclusions. Evolutionists claim that the Earth formed by meteoritic bombardment, sometimes called gravitational accretion. If so, the 2.489 × 1039 ergs of potential energy lost by these meteoroids (sum of column K) would become heat after impact with the growing Earth. This is 86 times greater than the heat released by gravitational settling.

To continue: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes18.html