Defense of the Faith - Creation & Evolution - Physical (revised)

So, last Sunday we had said there were a number of stages at which there were no clear transitional fossils. We dealt with the question of evolutionary creation and dealing with particularly the fossil record. We, at that point in time, weren't looking at, you know, are the ages correct? Is the Earth really that old? Is the universe that old? We're just looking at the fossil record, and one of the things we said was that the fossil record is the only historical evidence that if evolution has occurred, that it is in fact taking place.

And we pointed out that there were a number of instances where there were no transitional fossils. We point out instances with bats, with snakes, with turtles, with the transition from water to land. And we pointed out that with giraffes, here you have a large boned animal, no transitional fossils, none, totally lacking. And we point out with human beings, Human beings are either some, you know, human in the modern definition, or in some cases, human beings, because of either genetics or medical conditions, things of that sort, can have more primitive appearance, but it doesn't mean there are any less human beings. All right, now, we've said in view of that that the skeptic believes in miracles, for example, the transition from a rodent to a bat that uses echolocation and flies, etc., believes in miracles and has faith, and essentially does believe in those miracles without a god.

Now, last week we're not going to concern ourselves, we said, with the long ages. Today, that is in great part what we'll be looking at, is those long ages. And we'll be looking at two things basically, radioactive decay and looking at the solar system. So in examining the physical aspects of the Earth and solar system, we'll look at radioactive decay that's used to date various materials on the Earth. There are actually other areas we could consider, but because of the limited time, we'll just look at those two things. And hooray, Nancy's coming with the handouts.

Relative ages can be determined by a study of strata. In other words, if you have here's one layer and there's another layer on top of it, the idea is that the higher you are up in these series of layers, you've got younger ones on top and the older ones on the bottom, and you can go sequentially that way. That by itself doesn't tell you how old something is, does it? Archaeologists will do the same thing. They'll do a similar kind of thing where they're looking at at layers, and the stuff that's on top is more recent, etc. But to determine actual ages, other methods have been developed, and how do they do that? They measure some components, chemical components, isotopes, they measure those, and then make assumptions about the rates at which things happen and the relative amounts, and then generate, usually using a formula, the age.

Now, to introduce this, we're going to have parent and daughter isotopes. Now, I have no idea how you have a parent without a mom and dad, and I don't have any idea how you have always a daughter, but that's the term that's used. Parent and daughter isotopes. So we have, let me switch to this mode here. Okay, so you have parent and daughter isotopes.

What will happen is in radioactive materials, you'll have one material that is unstable. It breaks down into another material. that is more stable. So one of those, how many of you have heard of radiocarbon or carbon-14? That's one of them that you hear about. It's one that we've chosen here.

What will happen with carbon-14 is it will break down so that after 5,730 years or thereabouts, half of the amount will be left and then another 5,700 30 years, half of that amount will be left. So you go half to a quarter, to an eighth, etc. And so you have this decay curve like this that indicates how old something is.

Now, assuming that the decay rate is constant, and assuming that you have a given, and by the way, they make assumptions when they do this, you have a given amount of carbon-14 and carbon-12 at the beginning, then you can measure the relative amounts of carbon-14 and carbon-12, and then use this curve to arrive at an age for the material testing.

Now, does carbon-14 work to test everything? No, it only works for something where there's carbon in it, or in other words, organic material, and not always, but often it's something that used to be living. Something that used to be living, for example, a piece of bone, wood, but something that used to be a living material is typically what you test with carbon-14. There are other methods we have. a table here, and this is not all of them by any means, but it's several of them, and it shows carbon-14, and there's parent and daughter material. Carbon-14 is the parent, it's unstable, and it breaks down, and then the resulting material then is carbon-12. You've got half-life, is 5,730 years, and then the datable material.

There has to be, for carbon-14, some carbon atoms. Carbon-14 is found using some incredible equipment. It's an accelerator mass spectrometer is usually what's used. And it counts one out of every about one trillion carbon atoms and is able to determine the difference. It's really amazing technology.

Now, how old can something be to date with carbon-14? You can date something that's even maybe a century old. or you can date things that are centuries or thousands of years old, you can date something, at least hypothetically, that is as much as 50,000 years old. So that's all the carbon-14 will work on.

If you want to date Other materials are something that's supposedly older than, for example, potassium argon is a method that you would use. Years ago, studying geology, we found an ash layer that was all over the San Francisco Bay Area. There had been a volcano go off and dumped ash into the air, and so there was a layer of ash. And we were able to use the potassium argon method to come up with the date for that ash.

Which, by the way, I said it was a million years old, plus or minus a half million years. That was the date that it came up with. Then a uranium lead method, what they'll do is they'll take out the zircons, so we have to go through all the material and break it up and find all the little zircon crystals and pull those out and use those to do the test. And so those supposedly will test up to four and a half billion years. So now, now we come to our hourglasses. And this is where it gets fun. This is how much of the parent and daughter materials were present to start. Now, how do you know how much was present to start with? You don't. You don't. So what do you have to do? You have to make assumptions. Now, can you ever check the assumptions? No, you cannot. Okay.

The next one, has the rate of decay remained the same and or have there been any disruptions? And the assumption is that the decay rate has remained the same and there have been no disruptions. Do we understand what affects the decay rate of radioactive isotopes?

We don't. We found some things, rather surprisingly, that do affect it. But there again is another unknown. We don't really know what affects it, what makes things decay at the rate that they do, and therefore that's an unknown, a question mark. Okay, third question. Has any of the parent and or daughter material been added or taken away? Did I have some process that added more or took some away and is going to change my result? And you may have some contamination or leaching, as it's called, evidence that you can look at.

But unless you have that evidence, that's another question mark. So these are the uncertainties that you have with dating. You can never go back that far in time to cross-check it. Now, fortunately, we have some things where we do actually know by human verification what the age of things are.

Let's have you take a look at your second page. Here are some examples to consider. Alright, how many of you either were around or have heard of Mount St. Helens? Okay, all right, so that's one that's been there. I remember it. I fortunately was not right next to it when it went off. Mount St. Helens erupted in southern Washington state in March through May of 1980. And there's a little story about a cake that I could tell you, but I won't take the time.

Mount St. Helens is claimed to have originated some 40,000 years ago. That's what the conventional geology has concluded. Rock samples from a lava dome within the Mount St. Helens crater were dated using the potassium-argon method. Whole rock samples yielded an age of 350,000 years. When some of the amphibole minerals in the same rock sample were extracted and analyzed separately, their age was more than double at 900,000 years. Two mineral samples of a different mineral, pyroxene, yield an age of 1,700,000 years to 2,800,000 years, but the lava dome is only from spring of 1980, about 35 years ago.

So what's the problem? Yeah, the problem is we don't know. And probably one or more of those assumptions is incorrect, because not only is it far less than any of the ages that it came up with, and heavens, it's within our lifetimes for most of us, but you get a pretty wide and wild variation in how old is this.

Now what will typically happen is these radiation measurements and all that, these cost money. So you're usually not going to go out and do all these multiple tests and different methods and that sort of thing. Typically, you're just going to select one you think is going to give you a solid number and go with it. But what this reveals is that which method you select ends up giving you a rather different result, and all of them are incorrect.

Other examples, a lava flow exists along the border of Uganda, Zaire, and Rwanda in East Africa. The lava is known to be relatively young, possibly even within historical times. But a rubidium-stronium method age dating yields 773 million years old. When it's probably, you know, should be numbering in thousands of, at most, maybe centuries.

Yeah? Is this all in an attempt to date how old the Earth is? Well, ultimately, the test that would be run on the oldest rocks would give you the age of the Earth, right? So dates that are shorter than that, you would not have the age of the earth per se.

But for example, you're wanting to find out what's the age of this dinosaur fossil that I have. And I might say, well, I don't have a test to directly test the dinosaur fossil for millions of years. So what I would do is I would say, OK, here's a fossil. And right below that, I happen to have a volcanic layer. layer of basalt, for example. And so I could age date, at least that's the idea, I could age date the basalt that's right below it and give me an idea how old is this dinosaur fossil.

And so that would be an example of something that isn't exactly what's the age of the earth, but ends up giving you information about something that's supposedly along the path of things on Earth. Yeah. What's puzzling is that apparently then the Earth is still being formed because parts of the Earth are older than the other parts. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It is rather puzzling. Yeah. We're not we're not done with this, you know, strange stuff here. There are other examples that are on page two. I'll let you pick those up. We have some supplemental materials that you have in your handout. By the way, if you're missing a handout, we have additional copies here.

Okay, there's one in here that is titled Mark Armitage and the Triceratops Horn. Mark Armitage was working for California State University Northridge and He was in it wasn't a part of his regular job, but he was invited out on a dinosaur fossil hunt and so he went out there and and Found a triceratops Horn and By a series of events it was sent into the lab not for a the other radioactive methods that would give you millions of years, but for carbon-14 testing. Now why would you carbon-14 test a triceratops horn?

Ah, usually, and I found this was the case, usually these very old fossils are not tested for carbon-14. And as Randy pointed out, if you're assuming that the dinosaurs are all 63 million years old and older, how old is carbon-14 going to date anything? And what does it say there in the bottom? Up to about 50,000 years is what you're going to get for carbon-14 numbers. Why don't they bother testing for carbon-14 on something that is very, very old? It's assumed that by that time, there's no carbon-14 left, and I would say by 63 plus million years, there should be no, not even one atom of carbon-14 left.

And yet, what happened, and what I did is I copied not only just kind of the account here of him finding that, It's in what's called the Hell Creek Formation. And the flip side is the radiocarbon test that was done by the University of Georgia. And so, you know, you have the results there. Now, rather than coming up with a, but there's no carbon-14 left in this fossil, they came up instead with 33,570 years. for the age of the Triceratops fossil. That's a lot less than millions of years old, right? Now what it turns out is this is not a fluke. What it turns out is fairly regularly, if you test for carbon-14 in dinosaur fossils, all of which should be 63 million years old or older, and they've tested some that are over 100 million years old, you end up with radiocarbon, that is measurable carbon-14, in the fossils.

Now look at the next one. This one is titled, Dinosaur Bones Have Been Dated by Radiocarbon. And here is actually a team of guys who took fossils from different states. These are all dinosaur fossils. Texas, Colorado is one of them. Alaska, Montana, most of them, and another couple in Colorado. These are Triceratops, again, several samples of Triceratops, Hadrosaur, an Allosaurus in one case. So anyway, different kinds of dinosaurs, different states, all of them should be 63 million years old or older according to the conventional dating system.

But what it turns out is that you could look at each individual test, all of them are less than 40,000 years old according to the carbon-14 test. All of them had measurable radiocarbon. And so what you find is that having some radiocarbon left is the rule rather than the exception. And some of them dated just over 20,000 years. So we have less than 40,000 for all of them, and just over 20,000 on some of them.

So interesting results, and not one of them came up with zero radiocarbon, which theoretically should be, that's what you should have. Very interesting. So these fellows presented it at a conference, and when it was time to print up the material, the conference directors were just stunned and wouldn't have this included in the printed material. But they did get to present it.

So at any rate, that's another instance. Now, let's ask this question. Does this mean that the Earth is 6,000 years old? Now, the result here with the radiocarbon says that these dinosaurs aren't millions of years old. It also does not agree with, however, some younger age for the Earth. So it isn't necessarily just automatically pointing to a creation position. But let's ask this question.

Why would there be any radiocarbon left at all? if these are supposedly 63 million years old and older. Because the decay rate was slowed down. Yeah, something is wrong with the assumptions, isn't it? And what that would say is, assuming the decay rate was the same, assuming the decay rate was the same and we didn't have some contamination along the way, then these fossils are not millions of years old.

But it would also indicate that the standard assumptions probably don't fit either. You're blowing the whole system out of the water. So something is wrong with the radiation clocks, and we've seen it with These carbon-14 tests done on dinosaurs, they were supposedly 63 million years old and older. And we've seen it there at Mount St. Helens. And you can find examples of other places.

Diamonds, which are all supposed to be 1 to 3 billion years old, because it takes age and pressure to form a diamond, supposedly. So 1 to 3 billion years old is the age of all diamonds, according to conventional thinking. And yet, when you test a diamond, which is made of what? What's a diamond made of? Carbon, right? So you can test it for carbon-14, and guess what? There should be not one atom of carbon-14.

Instead, what you get is less than 50,000 years old. We went to Mt. St. Helens a couple of years ago as a family and one of the things I thought was fascinating at that point in time was how the explosion, the lava flow, and the events taking place instantly petrified people and things like that. So the idea that you have a slow transitional petrification period in space is an assumption, it's not a requirement. People make assumptions and we can have instances like Mount St. Helens to test those assumptions. And a lot of times people are surprised. Some people are so surprised that they don't even want to look at it. I had an experience about a week and a half ago.

Somebody posted on Pinterest something that said, you know, how come there's nothing outside you know, the New Testament fables and myths, right? How come there's nothing outside the New Testament fables and myths about Jesus until about three centuries later? Well, so I said, well, in fact there is, and I'd listed, you know, a bunch of different things that were have been found, you know, that were from the time of Christ, or within that first century after the time of Christ. And a number of them were written not by Christians, but by those who weren't Christians.

So anyway, within minutes, my post was deleted, and I was blocked. So, you know, it's one of those don't confuse me with the facts situations. Rather than engaging a discussion on things and challenging it and whatever, I don't want to look at that. Let's switch subjects here. We're going to look at the solar system.

Comets are fascinating people. It's interesting people have various reactions. You know, I think they're fascinating. There was a city in Europe that made it, I think it was Belgrade, Yugoslavia. They made it illegal for Halley's Comet to pass over Belgrade. So I don't know. A little funny. But comets are really interesting. They're at maximum... Well, here, don't let me get ahead of myself.

Comets break down into long-period comets, and that's 200 years in going around the sun and coming back, and less. Those are called short-period comets. And then there are long-period comets, like one that recently went by. They figure it goes by once every 10,000 years, approximately. So long-period comets are those greater than 200 years. And so you've got that breakdown.

Now, comets aren't that big. They're relatively small, being about 15 kilometers or less in size. Halley's Comet, for example, is shaped like a potato. And the long distance is 15 kilometers. So the smaller distance is something less than that, something less than 10 kilometers. So you have comets, these small, you kind of call them dirty ice balls or icy dirt balls, right?

The comets, the tails tend to point away from the sun, although when they get close to the sun, there can be a tail behind them that doesn't point away quite so much. So they tend to have the solar wind pushing the tail away until they get really close to the sun and they're traveling faster.

Now, discoveries of comets, including some that are long-period comets, add to the total count. And so we'll see some new comet and register it, and so then that adds to the count. Some that are long-period comets don't come around that often. We may see them for the first time in modern times, and there'd be no prior record. That happened just recently, just this last year. November 2014, that's the latest statistic I can find, 5,253 known comets. Okay, so quite a few. And again, these are all small and not all of them come around very often, so we may not see them again.

Halley's Comet is one that comes around, you know, pretty consistently. Now, but comets also can disintegrate gradually. That is, over time, what's that tail coming off of them? That tail is material that's being lost slowly. So that's a gradual diminishing of the material in the comet by being burned up by the sun.

And we're going to take a look at that in just a second here. and then or they can plunge into a planet or the moon or one of the moons and by the way some of the planets are being discovered to have many dozens of moons So you can have that kind of phenomenon.

There's one other I didn't mention, and that is a comet can end up being pitched out of the solar system as a fourth means. I didn't put that on the list. It can be pitched out of the solar system. Let's say it gets hooked around a planet and then all of a sudden has a path and trajectory and speed that sends it out of the solar system. So that's a fourth method.

Now, here is one. Watch this. Can you see that? And what that disk is hiding is the sun, because it's just so bright, everything else would be invisible. This is Comet ISIN. And at the end of November, I remember emailing with some guys and saying, hey, look, look for this comet. It's going to be really great. And come about December, you should be able to see this thing real bright.

Even, you know, like with binoculars or something like that. Problem. On the 28th of November, 2013, it did this little path, got too close to the sun, and basically just burned up and dissipated. You can see, it's a little tough to see right here, but there's just a tiny bit of almost spray that comes, you know, as it's being broken up. So ison, I-S-O-N, Ison was an example of one that got burned up by going too close to the Sun and dissipated. That was its last trip.

Here's another one. In 1994, comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, and they have funny names for these comets, but it broke up and plunged into Jupiter and actually captured the collision as it went into Jupiter. So it's examples of those kinds of things. So while we see more comets and count more, we also lose some. Now, if you look at all the different processes by which comets get lost, either slowly dissipating, burned up, crashing into planets and moons and things of that sort, you end up with Arriving at well about four million years all the comets in our solar system get cleaned up Why Do we have over 5,000 of them? If the earth is four and a half billion or in the universe Excuse me the solar system about four and a half billion years old. Why do we have? Comets still over 5,000 of them Hmm, good question.

So what different astronomers have come up with, and it's actually a pair of Dutch astronomers that came up with this, is that the short-period comets come from a belt that is out by the orbit of Pluto, which by the way has been declassified as a planet, right? by the orbit of Pluto, and that's called the Kuiper belt. The Dutch astronomer Kuiper came up with that.

Here is an example of the main asteroid belt, which is just outside of the orbit of Mars. And then the Kuiper belt there is out in the orbit of Pluto. And so the thought is that comets must come from that belt that's out there, and they're not planets, but planetoids. The difficulty, and by the way, just this year, we have a space probe that's actually out there at this area with these Kuiper belt planetoids.

So we may get some new information, but from what the information that we've had so far, there have been two problems with that theory. Short-period comets coming from this belt. One problem is that the comets, we mentioned they're all 15 kilometers and smaller, and what's out there in this Kuiper belt is larger. And they're not dirty ice balls, right? The material is not identical. So there's both a size and a material problem with the Kuiper belt being the source of this.

So, now we've got another one that's really fun, and that has to do with the long-period comets. Why is it that we still have these long-period comets if they get cleaned up after about 4 million years? Well, so another Dutch astronomer named Oort, O-O-R-T, another Dutch astronomer named Oort came up with this idea that there must be a cloud of just comets in waiting out there. Comets in waiting.

And so, but it's way out there. It's like astronomical units, you know, as distance from, you know, Earth to the Sun, so this this is a hundred thousand astronomical units. It's out there. It's way out there. Ever heard of the Voyager spacecraft? The Voyager spacecraft has left our immediate solar system, and it's on its way out to the Oort cloud if it exists. It'll get there about 14,000 years from now. Okay, so somebody will let you know, right?

At any rate, so Here's the difficulty with the Oort cloud. The only reason for theorizing an Oort cloud way, way out there is because you need to have some reason for why we still have comets. All the comets should long, long, long ago, very long time ago, have been gone, swept out of our solar system Unless there's a source, right? So that's the reason why the Oort Cloud has been put out there as a source for these long-period comets.

Now, has anybody ever seen the Oort Cloud? No one has ever seen the Oort Cloud, not with astronomical telescopes, not with space probes, nothing. Nobody has ever seen an Oort Cloud, okay? in looking at other solar systems. No other solar system out there has an Oort cloud. The only reason to believe, notice my choice of words, that there is an Oort cloud, is if you believe the universe must be billions of years old. Otherwise there is no scientific reason to believe in it. So I call it the Oort cloud of faith. It's the orc cloud of faith. You will believe in it because you need to. Because you need it. But it is entirely based on faith. Do you believe in something you can't see, feel, touch? Yeah. Apparently.

Because there's no sensing of it. It is only arrived at by the assumption that the solar system and therefore the universe is old. That's the only reason to conclude that we have one. So here's the Oort cloud. I doubt we will ever have any chance to even try to verify it because it's so far out there. Voyager is going to take 14,000 years to get there. And by the way, that's one estimate. Another estimate is 28,000 years. We're not, in our lifetime, going to have any chance of finding out if there is or is not an Oort cloud. So it's completely of faith and entirely unverifiable. But people will talk about it because, of course, things are old.

Now, sun and hydrogen bombs is the next one. The hydrogen bomb was invented around 1952, which is the year of my birth, and that's probably not accidental. At any rate, it began to be realized once the hydrogen bomb had been developed that the sun is really just a very, very large hydrogen bomb. The exact same mechanism takes place in a hydrogen bomb as happens with the sun. And so once that was realized, OK, we have a very large hydrogen bomb.

Now we can model the sun. And we can project, for example, into the past and into the future regarding the size of the sun. And we can also project when it's going to burn out. But also now going back in time, and again, you're assuming How do things stand now? And then let's project back in time, assuming everything keeps going as we expect. What we end up with is the faint young sun paradox.

The sun, three and a half million years ago when life was supposed to be getting started, the sun would produce a little over 70% of its current rate of energy output. That means that the earth would have been, when you need life to get started on its own, the earth would have been a frozen ice ball. Everything just frozen solid. So with the Earth a frozen ice ball, the generation of the first single-celled life and the evolution of that life appears to be a serious challenge.

Now, there have been various solutions offered over the decades. Yeah, it's been decades, you know. Since various solutions were offered, different ones, none of them have even been found acceptable by those who would like to have a solution, right? Would like to have this result. So what that says is that there's a serious problem out there. Decades of time have not come up with a solution.

If life was supposed to have evolved on its own, there's inadequate, you know, energy for that to have occurred from anything that we know, right? So anyway, that's the faint young sun paradox. You have this, you know, here it is on the chart. So going through the the modeling of a large hydrogen bomb, the sun, and where it stands now, that's the conclusion we reach. You end up with, when life is beginning, it is very, very cold. Yeah?

So how old, under the hydrogen theory, do they estimate that the sun could be? Oh, well, the sun, you know, it goes back, you know, these billions of years, just like about four and a half billion years. And they come up with, you know, the decimal points. But, you know, about four and a half billion years for the sun and the earth and the solar system to originate. Actually, if you use a theory that, you know, that it's dissipating at a certain rate. Right. So how would it be under that assumption? It's you still come up with about the four point six billion years number if you extrapolate back.

The sun is more output than it did in the hypothetical 3.5 billion years ago compared to that. It gets brighter and then peaks and then falls off. Yeah, I mean, the modeling of it, now that we understand hydrogen bombs, the modeling of it is fairly clear. And projecting back and projecting into the future, that's kind of what we've got. So I wouldn't panic. We've got another billion years or so.

Now, we get to Mercury. Mercury is the first planet out from the sun, right? And what's very interesting, we've sent three probes since the 1970s, I think it was about 1974 was the first one. We've sent three probes past Mercury and some very interesting information.

It has a magnetic field and magnetic fields are thought to be generated by a core, a solid core, an iron core, that rotates differently than the outer mantle. And so as a consequence of that, that generates a magnetic field. That's thought to be true of the earth. It's thought to be, you know, It's a little head-scratchy.

It's thought to be true of a few other planets, not Mars, not Venus. Those have just about zero magnetic field. But Mercury has one. It's weaker than Earth's, but it's still there. But Mercury's core, however, is way too large. That's a problem. The core is way too large, and so you don't have enough of a difference between there and the mantle to be able to get dynamo going that generates a magnetic field. But it does have a magnetic field. Now, they're working on it. I'll tell you that. They're working on how to make this thing work. But the bottom line is that's where it stands.

If we compare Mercury's core, much larger, relatively speaking, than Earth's core is to the mantle on the outside. There isn't any real evolutionary explanation right now for why Mercury has a magnetic field. And this information, by the way, is in the book The Sun, Mercury, and Venus by Linda Elkins Tanton. There's the year in the pages and whatnot. That's what she says, so I'm not making something up. So, why does it have a magnetic field when it shouldn't? Is it possible that it was created with a magnetic field, but not generated by the differential between the core and the mantle? Yes. So, it's kind of like which came first, the magnetic field? Yeah.

So, why... Why isn't the center core rotating in the opposite direction? What causes that? It isn't necessarily going in the opposite direction, but they're at least rotating differently. That would be the theory. Yeah, and there's some fluidity between the hard iron core and the outer mantle. That would allow them for some generation. No, not necessarily opposite, just differently.

Now, the other thing is it's decaying rapidly. So the bottom line is you can't have a really, really, really old mercury decaying rapidly. Because otherwise, during some billions of years, you wouldn't have one, right? It's decaying rapidly. So between the 70s, 1974 I think it was, and the last time that they measured with a probe, which is like a third space probe that they put up there, it had 7.8% decline just during that time. So that's like within my lifetime, we've had a significant decline. We're talking about something that's supposed to have been around for billions of years. So it's a little hard to imagine.

Additionally, Mercury has 20 times more sulfur proportionally than Earth. And sulfur is something, and perhaps you've even seen it, sulfur burns, right? And Mercury is very close to the Sun, right? So Mercury should have burned off all of its sulfur, and yet still we find it has 20 times more sulfur proportionally than the Earth. So that would indicate a younger age for mercury, not an older one. It should have little to no sulfur left. So here's just another example. We've got others but have run out of time. I think that's the second buzzer, isn't it? We've got other things to look at.

Venus rotates backwards on its axis compared to the other planets. How it should do that and why it should do that is a little hard to ponder. Various theories have been put forth. I don't think you'll end up substantiating any of them. because there's no way to go back in time. Let's take, for example, if some sort of a large planetoid went by and struck it in such a way that it reversed its orbit. That's one of the theories as to how Venus would have reversed its orbit from what it should be.

So that's examples. The Earth-Moon system. Again, we've run out of time here. So at the top here, I've put Right there. Put places you can go and you can look at the other planets and moons and get some evidence from them. Now, all this stuff, there's all kinds of contention. I tend to be one that looks at skeptics' websites and all the criticisms and all that kind of thing.

So, you know, you can find that out there as well. According to the rate at which the moon is going away from the earth, and not just being simplistic and extrapolating that back, but actually looking at what are the forces that are causing the moon to move back, and using the right mathematical formulas, the earth and moon should be touching 1.4 billion years ago. So that doesn't compute with, you know, four and a half billion. So you end up having another anomaly and you go from planet to planet and it seems like you go to each one and even to the moons and you end up with things that cast into question that this universe evolved all by itself billions of years ago.

Let's pray and let the people who are wanting to come in here come. Thank you Lord for just the wonders of the things that you've made And thank you, Lord, too, that you've revealed what we cannot know otherwise, really. And we also, in the midst of this, realize the importance of our being humble. We really don't know a lot of things. We assume a lot of things. And, Lord, we have determined here that we put our trust and faith and confidence in you. We thank you in Jesus' name. Amen.