Search This Blog

Sunday, August 18, 2013

News Flash!!! Solar System is Young, was Created!!!

If you got the Spike Psarris Newsletter, you would be updated when something new and interesting happens with Spike and the information he shares about space missions and what we learn from them...because you are NOT told what is actually being learned from probably can figure out why!   Darwinism is all about censorship and propaganda.  Free yourself from the ruling paradigm!!!

Creation Astronomy News 

Volume IV, Number 2 (August 2013)

In this issue:
  • Alien Solar Systems
  • Spike Speaking in California This Fall
  • Our Created Solar System

alien solar system
Image credit: ESA; Hubble, M. Kornmesser; and ESO, L. Cal├žada and L. L. Christensen

Alien Solar Systems

What have they revealed?

Is our Solar System special?
Science media and textbooks have always said that the answer is no. We live in a ho-hum, average Solar System. There’s nothing special or unusual about it.1

Our Solar System
Our Solar System.
Image credit: NASA

But lately, even secular astronomers are being forced to admit that the truth is quite different. Apparently our Solar System is very unusual.
You’ve probably heard that scientists have been diligently searching for exoplanets (planets outside of our Solar System), using a variety of new techniques.
Just a couple of decades ago, no exoplanets were known. Now the count is approaching 900, with another couple thousand candidates under investigation.
Recently a paper was published in Science2 that summarized the characteristics of these planets. It’s forcing people to face an issue that’s been quietly growing worse and worse for the astronomical community: the realization that exoplanets do not support the secular origins model for our Solar System.

Not So Obvious Anymore

Before we started finding exoplanets, secular astronomers were confident that there were countless Solar Systems ‘out there’ in the Milky Way that were just like our own.
After all, astronomers ‘knew’ that our Solar System formed all by itself billions of years ago, from a big cloud of gas. And since it happened here, it must have happened countless other places too.

Solar nebula
Artist's conception
of our Solar System's formation.
Image credit: NASA

This process was well understood. Supposedly, as the primordial gas cloud collapsed under gravity, it formed into a disk shape.
That’s why the planets all orbit the Sun in the same direction today, with all their orbits lining up fairly closely into a disk that’s aligned with the Sun’s equator.
Also, different elements condensed out of the cloud at different distances from the Sun.
That’s why the inner planets of our Solar System are terrestrial (rocky), while the outer planets are made of gas and ice. The condensation process also supposedly explains why the outer planets are gigantic when compared to the (much smaller) inner planets.
The gas-cloud-to-planets model has been taught for decades.
In fact, it’s fair to say that most astronomers assumed our Solar System was inevitable, once you started from an appropriate gas cloud.
And with 100 billion stars in our galaxy, surely there would be millions, maybe even billions, of other Solar Systems out there, with roughly the same characteristics as ours.
This prediction was simple and straightforward. In fact, the whole idea seemed rather obvious.
It was also completely wrong.

Another Beautiful Theory Slain By Ugly Facts

We’ve now discovered almost 900 exoplanets, having a wide variety of characteristics.
These planets have not matched secular expectations.
There are huge gas giants orbiting their parent stars at ridiculously close distances – far closer than Mercury orbits the Sun. In fact, some of these planets orbit their stars in just a couple of Earth days.
Many of these are known as “Hot Jupiters”: gas giants roughly the size of Jupiter, orbiting their stars so closely that their atmospheres are estimated to be about 1,000 Celcius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit).

A hot Jupiter
Artist's depiction of a 'hot Jupiter'.
Image credit: NASA

In secular models, only terrestrial planets are allowed to form this close to a star. Gas planets can only form out beyond the “frost line” – a distance far enough away from the star that water, ammonia, methane, and other ices can condense. (In our Solar System, this is beyond the orbit of Mars, in the middle of the asteroid belt).
So Hot Jupiters aren’t supposed to be there, so close to their stars. But there they are anyway.
Some other systems do have terrestrial inner planets, as expected. But these planets are ridiculously close to their stars too, which was unexpected. Some whip around their stars in just a couple of days.
Many strange systems have been found. A fairly common configuration is for a pair of Neptune-sized planets to orbit their star very closely. Again, the secular model can’t explain this.
Some systems are bizarre, like Kepler-20. This system has five planets of alternating size (large, small, large, small, large) – all of which orbit the star more closely than Mercury does our Sun.
We also see lots of systems with planets intermediate in size between Earth and Neptune. Our Solar System – which was supposed to be the model for all other systems – has exactly zero planets like this, but they’re apparently common elsewhere.

The CoRoT-2 system
Artist's depiction of the CoRoT-2 system.
This planet's distance from the star is only
3 percent of the Earth-Sun distance.
As a result, X-rays from the star
are stripping material off the planet.
Image credit: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss

Then there are the planets that have been found with orbits that are highly inclined (tilted to the equators of their parent stars). Secular models predict that planets will have very low inclinations – but often, the opposite is being found.
My personal favorites are the planets which have retrograde orbits. In other words, they go around their parent stars backwards, compared to what secular models predicted.
These exoplanets have made a real mess out of secular origin models for our Solar System. As Caltech astronomer Mike Brown told NPR3:
“Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong.”
Astronomers are now scrambling to explain these new discoveries.
There are all sorts of new theories about how hot Jupiters formed out where they were ‘supposed’ to, and then moved inward…
…and how inclined planets formed where they were ‘supposed’ to, and then moved outward
…and how the “missing” planets in eccentric single-planet systems formed where they were ‘supposed’ to, but then got ejected… blah blah blah.
As usual, these aren’t really scientific theories – they’re merely just-so stories.
And the only thing they prove is that astronomers can have active imaginations.
There’s also a key point that is being ignored: if all these planetary migration and ejection processes are so common, then why didn’t they happen here in our Solar System?
Add it all up, and it seems our local cosmic neighborhood isn’t so ordinary and average as secular scientists have claimed.
Apparently, our Solar System is pretty special after all.
And that’s wonderfully consistent with the Bible… and inconsistent with atheistic origin theories.

Spike Speaking in California This Fall

Lord willing, I'll be in California late this fall, from mid-November through early December.
I'm looking for places to speak: churches, Bible studies, homeschool meetings, whatever. The size of the group isn't important.
If you live in California and you know of a church or group that might be interested in having me speak, please contact me.

DVD cover

Our Created Solar System

In astronomy, five years is a long time.

The first volume of the Creation Astronomy DVD series was published almost five years ago. A few things in astronomy have changed since then.
And so, the DVD was due for an update–which is now finished. I recently got the first shipment of the new, revised edition. (The revisions are listed below.)
To celebrate its arrival, I’m having a half-off sale here:

Until Friday, both Creation Astronomy DVDs are available for just $7.50 each. That's a 50 percent discount, with no limits on quantity.

Here’s a list of the revisions in the new edition of What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Volume I: Our Created Solar System:
  • Chapter 1 (Introduction): More information was added about the secular model’s inability to produce planetesimals – the foundational building blocks for the entire model.
  • Chapter 2 (Mercury): This chapter was almost completely redone, in order to discuss the exciting new results from the MESSENGER mission. MESSENGER has overturned much of what secular astronomers thought they knew about Mercury, and this spacecraft has provided lots of delightful results for creationists.
  • Chapter 4 (Earth): This chapter now talks about some new attempts by secular astronomers to explain how the Earth could have so much water today, when their models say it should have very little. (Hint: the new secular  explanation is introduced on the DVD with a trumpet fanfare…)
  • Chapter 7 (Jupiter): This chapter was revised extensively. Over the last few years, secular astronomers have changed their thinking about the characteristics of the alleged primordial gas disk, in order to solve some of the problems I discussed in the first edition of the DVD – especially the problem where Jupiter couldn’t form quickly enough, before the gas disk had dissipated. Since some of this material had become outdated, in the new edition I replaced it with additional problems that Jupiter poses for the secular model. (To summarize: the secular model can’t provide the building blocks necessary to make Jupiter, and the planet’s composition doesn’t match the model’s predictions either.)
  • Other minor changes are scattered throughout the DVD, mostly to correct minor problems. For example, a screen in the Saturn chapter showed a number where a zero was missing. In addition to these corrections, the DVD case back cover got a new design, as did the DVD disc itself.
After all the changes, the DVD’s length increased a bit (up to 110 minutes).
Here's the page where the DVDs are available:

It will be taken down on Friday afternoon, or whenever I run out of my current stock, whichever comes first.


  1. And that’s a good thing, according to atheists. After all, if we lived in a special place, that would have uncomfortable implications about the possibility of a Designer.
  2. Howard, Andrew W., "Observed Properties of Extrasolar Planets," Science, vol. 340, pp. 572-576, 3 May 2013
  3. Krulwich, Robert, "Our Very Normal Solar System Isn't Normal Anymore," May 07, 2013,

Psalm 19:1-4

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

Spike Psarris


Anonymous said...

Newsflash: 0.000000...000001 % of solar system examined. No planets capable of supporting life found yet.

Therefore God.

radar said...

You have not checked the evidence, have you? Our Solar System could not have coalesced from dust and it is quite young. Space missions/probes have shown dramatically that this is so...and also confirmed the predictions of YEC astrophysicist Russell Humphreys, who predicted the magnetic fields of planets before they were investigated.

If people were taught the evidence for creation just from what we know about the Sun, Moon, planets and their moons then long ages would already have been cast aside as pagan beliefs that had been artificially thrust into science.

radar said...

Furthermore, we get a great view of the Universe from our location in the arm of the Milky Way and such tools as the Hubble. Far more than "0.000000...000001 % of solar system examined"

radar said...

Finally, SETI tries to find one little shred of information coming from outer space and Darwinists ignore entire libraries of information within each cell? Hypocrisy!!! There is NO natural source of information, therefore organisms were designed. Occam's Razor. Also the Law of Biogenesis was firmly established and what we know about chemistry precludes life arising from chance. Therefore God.

Anonymos said...

"Furthermore, we get a great view of the Universe from our location in the arm of the Milky Way and such tools as the Hubble. Far more than "0.000000...000001 % of solar system examined""

How many solar systems can we observe well enough to be able to see their planets etc.? It's a tiny tiny tiny percentage. Perhaps you're familiar with the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field. That image alone features 10,000 galaxies. How many of the solar systems in those galaxies can we examine for planets? Zero. And that's just a tiny, tiny part of what we can observe from our current vantage point.

radar said...

Actually, our vantage point from the arm of a spiral galaxy gives us a view of a large part of the Universe and we have the technology to send space missions like Hubble out to se even more.

The ridiculous SETI project seeks to find one little fragment of information from ANYWHERE in the Universe but Darwinists ignore the massive amounts of information in organisms. Because of this hypocrisy, the information released to us by the ruling paradigm about what is learned from space missions is called into question. Good thing a guy like Spike Psarris has the experience, qualifications and access to present evidence about the Solar System and the entire Universe that supports the creation timeline rather than the long ages canard.

Anyone can study the systems that have been measured long term that have a half-life short enough to eliminate anomalies and realize that the Earth cannot be old, nor can the Sun, let alone the rest of the Solar System. This then calls the entire old age scenario into question. Check out the strength of the magnetic field, the energy and probable lifespan of the Sun and the Faint Young Sun paradox, the rate the Moon recedes from the Earth, the ratio of C-14/12 in the atmosphere as examples.

Since the Big Bang depends on unexplained miracles and only includes 4% of all observed matter and energy, the Darwinist view of the Universe is as empty and illogical as their view of the fossil rocks and organisms.

Anonymos said...

"Actually, our vantage point from the arm of a spiral galaxy gives us a view of a large part of the Universe and we have the technology to send space missions like Hubble out to se even more."

No, that's just the point, our vantage point of being able to perceive actual planets (not just galaxies as little dots) is almost zero. See my previous comment. The Hubble telescope looked at a tiny tiny part of the celestial sphere and found 10,000 galaxies. We can't even identify the untold numbers of individual solar systems in those galaxies, let alone the actual planets in those solar systems.

That's 10,000 galaxies in that little part of the celestial sphere. In total about 170 billion galaxies are estimated to exist. And of those we have started examining a small part of ONE SINGLE GALAXY. So the fact that we haven't stumbled on a solar system capable of supporting life yet is pretty meaningless.

"And with 100 billion stars in our galaxy, surely there would be millions, maybe even billions, of other Solar Systems out there, with roughly the same characteristics as ours. This prediction was simple and straightforward. In fact, the whole idea seemed rather obvious. It was also completely wrong."

Based on what exactly can he claim that the idea is completely wrong? We haven't even examined a significant portion of those 100 billion stars in our galaxy yet. Nobody claimed that every solar system would evolve exactly the same as our own.

As usual with creationist claims, it doesn't take long until you get to the fatal logical flaw that creationists have to dodge and weave around.