This is a first draft of what I plan to eventually post to the talk.origins newsgroup. Comments from real astronomers or anyone else are requested.

Gravity versus the Young-Earth Creationists

Young-earth creationists not only claim that the Earth is less then ten thousand years old, they almost always claim that the universe is itself under ten thousand years old as well. The reason for this is clear if one literally reads the first account of creation that starts the Book of Genesis which indicates that the Sun and Moon were created on the fourth day while grass, herbs, trees, and dry land were created on the third day. The discovery that the vast majority of astronomical objects are so distant that it would take light far longer than ten thousand years to reach the telescopes of astronomers is often pointed out as an observation that contradicts the premise that Genesis should be accepted as literal truth. How astronomers know how far astronomical objects are and how young-earth creationists deal with this objection are covered in detail in the Determining Distances to Astronomical Objects FAQ. It must be noted though that the astronomical absurdities of such creationist views are hardly limited to the problem of seeing light that should not have had time to reach us. Our solar system has many features that are strong evidence for the notion that it existed before ten thousand years ago. This essay focuses on one of them: an asteroid collision that can be conclusively dated as happening 5.8 ± 0.2 million years ago simply by tracing back the orbits of its fragments.

Asteroids or minor planets are small rocky objects orbiting the Sun many of which are in a "belt" between the planets Mars and Jupiter. As of February 12, 2004 there are 152,303 asteroids in the AstDyS database. Many asteroids in the asteroid belt form "families" as was first noted by Japanese astronomer Kiyotsugu Hirayama in 1918.

These families are groups of asteroids with orbital parameters closer to each other than would be expected by chance. Hirayama suggested that these families are the result of breakup of a larger asteroid. This was a reasonable hypothesis since with thousands of asteroids it would be reasonable to expect the collisions that would cause asteroids to breakup would occur but for decades there was no strong evidence to back this up. Starting with a 1999 Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctoral thesis by Schelte Bus this changed. One can examine the spectrum of the light from asteroids. If a Hirayama family is really is the result of an asteroid breakup then its members should have similar spectra due to similar chemical compositions. Furthermore not all Hirayama families will have the same composition. Bus showed that these predictions were true for some Hirayama families.

Ivezic et al. (2002) examined 10,592 asteroids (6,612 with well-determined orbits) using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. That survey which is actually for objects outside of our Galaxy had to recognize the presence of asteroids moving in front of objects that it intended to observe so they would not contaminate the data. Ivezic et al. (2002) showed that just mentioned predictions were true and thus provided strong evidence that the members of a Hirayama family have a common origin. Indeed each of the three largest Hirayama families (Eos, Koronis, and Themis families each named after their largest member) represented different category of the four major types of asteroids. The Vesta family represents the fourth type. This family is named after (4) Vesta, which is the third largest and brightest asteroid. (The "4" in "(4) Vesta" indicates that fourth asteroid cataloged.) The studied showed that asteroids judged to be members of a family based on orbital considerations have similar composition based their observed light. The study furthermore concludes that 90% of the main-belt asteroids (i.e. between Mars and Jupiter) are members of a family.

Now that a family of asteroids has a common origin is something which can be put to good use by astronomers. But unfortunately if these families are hundreds of millions of years old, as astronomers believe them to be then enough time has passed that the family to been affected by additional asteroid collisions, by the effects that radiation has on orbits, and by chaotic orbital changes.

Nesvorny et al. (2002) set out to remedy this situation. They used a computer to search the known orbits of asteroids for groups of asteroids that might have been the result of a recent event. "Recent" meaning as an astronomer understands the term but not as a creationist would. They found that 39 asteroids that they looked at formed a "compact feature." For those familiar with statistics the clustering was statistically significant to a level greater than 99%. Calculations showed that the cluster cannot be older then a few tens of millions of years old since it would have dispersed in a greater time. Thus they concluded that the cluster "must be young--so young, in fact, that it may be the first essentially unaltered disruption structure ever identified in the main belt." They named it the Karin family after its largest member, (832) Karin.

Nesvorny et al. (2002) wished to deduce the actual age of the Karin family. The method is simply to trace back the orbits of the family's members. For this analysis they used 13 of the 39 asteroids. This subset was chosen on the basis of how well known the asteroid orbits were known so that only asteroids with well-determined orbits were used for reasons that should be obvious. Basically they used a software package that used Newton's theory of gravity to determine what the orbits of the asteroids were in the past. Since the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) have so little gravitational influence they were neglected, but the four gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) had their gravitational influence accounted for. They also neglected the effects of radiation.

The results showed that about 5.8 ± 0.2 million years ago the orbits converged to almost the exact same orbit. The researchers estimated the odds of 13 unrelated orbit randomly meeting in a period of four and a half billion years is less then one in a million. Thus it is safe to rule out coincidence and thus it would seem certain that these asteroids had the same orbit and thus were the result of a breakup that occurred 5.8 million years ago. The researchers further tested their ideas by redoing the analysis including the gravity of the inner planets and found it made no difference in the results. They also ran the calculations 50 million years into the future and 50 million years into the past and found no other alignment of orbits.

The point of all this should be obvious: The Solar System must be at least 5.8 million years old. Actually it must be even older than that since the Karin family is the only known grouping of asteroids that is young enough that such calculations can be done for the reasons already discussed above. Indeed the Karin family is itself part of much larger Koronis family of asteroids which itself is the remains of a more ancient breakup.

How can a young-earth creationist deal with this? They can't say that this was an event that was before the Earth was formed since a literal reading of the Bible clearly states that the Sun -- the object these asteroids are orbiting -- was created after the Earth was. Their usual methods of denying that it took light of astronomical objects millions or billions of years to reach us simply don't apply to the Solar System with the exception of God creating a universe that falsely appears to be old. They can't deny the theory of gravity since it so precisely and correctly predicts where objects in our Solar System will be and since it used so successfully to precisely navigate space probes. For radiometric dating and for light travel time creationists sometimes argue that constants of physics are not constant but greatly vary in time. But there is only one physical constant relevant to this analysis: the gravitational constant that governs how strong gravity is. But this is not an option since that would change Earth's orbit, affect the stability of the Sun, and make objects on Earth weigh many times greater. There is no way out for creationists other than ignoring the evidence or admitting that they were wrong about the universe being young.

Meanwhile researchers continue to use the discovery of the Karin family. Michel et al. (2003) did one such follow up study. They modeled asteroid collisions in a computer in an attempt to simulate the asteroid collision that created the Karin family. They discovered that the collision of monolithic asteroids (i.e. solid bodies) could not result in the formation of a cluster with the properties of the observed Karin family. However if the colliding asteroids were pre-fragmented, they could generate results that resembled the Karin family. Thus they concluded that the parent body of the Karin family was pre-fragmented. This should be unsurprising since the Karin family is part of the older Koronis family. Furthermore the largest members of the Karin family are according to the modeling the results of gravitational reaccumulation of the smaller objects created by the collision. Michel et al. (2001) had previously simulated that formation of the Eunomia and Koronis asteroid families and had concluded that their larger members were gravitationally reaccumulated fragments and that it was likely true for all the large asteroid families.

Sources used:

Ivezic, Zeljko et al. 2002. "Color confirmation of asteroid families." The paper was accepted for publication in The Astronomical Journal, Volume 124, Issue 5, pp. 2943-2948 NASA ADS link

Michel, Patrick et al. 2001. "Collisions and Gravitational Reaccumulation: Forming Asteroid Families and Satellites." Science, Volume 294, pp. 1696-1700.

Michel, Patrick et al. 2003. "Disruption of fragmented parent bodies of the origin of asteroid families." Nature, Volume 421, pp. 608-611.

Nesvorny, David et al. 2002. "The recent breakup of an asteroid in the main-belt region." Nature, Volume 417, pp. 720-722.

Schilling, Govert 2002. "All in the asteroid family." accessed February 12, 2004. Originally published in the "News Notes" section of the February 2002 issue of Sky and Telescope.

Links fixed for length by The Bad Astronomer plus three edits for grammatical and spelling corrections by Harlequin.

That one correction is all I can add - that is a great piece, well structured and full of info. You've very elegantly shown that there are yet more holes in the creationist paradigm.

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

Thanks for the correction. I edited the original post.

I thought of also discussing the Kirkwood gaps and other resonance features as well as tidal locking of the Moon, but decided for now to keep it simple.

This is something I've been trying to deal with for a long time. I believe in creation and also that the universe is incredibly old.
I've long felt that the account of creation at the beginning of Genesis is not literal, but a way to tell about creation where people could kinda get an idea of the event. The actual creation may have been a lot different that anything we can imagine.
This is mostly how I try to reconcile my faith and the facts of observable astronomy/science as best I can understand them.
My mind can't ignore scientific fact and my heart can't ignore God.
You might say I'm trying to put a big square peg in a small round hole with a sledge hammer.
Even at my age, I'm still a child as far as my faith and I'm learning as I go. What works for me doesn't work for others. It happens. (grin)
Thanks for posting this and the links.

Rc

EDITED for spelling. A friend of mine calls me 'Typo Fiend of the Century' on MSN. :roll:

__________________
WAG - 1000 and counting
Rc2000's Godzilla Tribute

Nice post, harlequin. Would be interested in seeing what rebuttals are made to your points by the YEC. Please keep us informed.

__________________
JayUtah wrote:
The marketplace of ideas ensures that each item is put on display, but does not compel its purchase.

Why couldn't God simply create a universe with the appearance of age? It seems like a simple solution to the problem to me, one that should make all sides happy. Creationists don't have to worry about contradictory science, because God just made it that way. Scientists don't have to worry about Creationists anymore, because now they're just figuring out the pattern to God's creation and using the pattern to understand the world better.

Simple analogy, I can walk into a room saying "100, 101, 102, 103, 104...". People in the room can either believe that I just started counting at 100, or assume I started counting at 1 some time ago. It hardly makes a difference for predicting that I am about to say "105". Besides, I really started at 42.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

YES!

__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

If I recall my history correctly, someone tried to approach both sides with that suggestion. The sceintists didn't like it because it was unprovable, and the religionists hated the suggestion that God would decieve us.

Alas, I cannot cite a source for this fragment of memory.

Using the OP as a yardstick for your analogy, it very quickly falls in a heap. Creationists want us to assume you started at 100. The OP essentially states that there was a number 98. So if there's evidence that you counted 98, why would I assume that the evidence was only placed there to make me believe you counted 98, and you never actually counted it? It's not an intuitive conclusion, and certainly avoids Ockham's Razor.
Appearance of age may not be an inconsistant conclusion, but it sure is a silly way to think.

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

Well, from the scientific point of view, it is no more or less provable than assuming physical laws are the same everywhere, as General Relativity (and any sane science in general) requires. That leap of faith has always bothered me about physics, and I’m actually more comfortable with it if I can assume that God just willed it that way.

I’m also not sure why a creationist would consider it a deception. A rock may appear smooth to the touch, but appear rough under a microscope. Does that make the smoothness a deception, or does the microscope merely reveal hidden detail? Further, at the microscopic level new colors, patterns, and beauty is revealed. Should we not be pleased to find the universe is far more complex and beautiful than we first imagined, and that God left it to us to discover for ourselves?

Anyway, threads like this wind up locked sooner or later, so I’ll let that be my last word on the subject before someone uncivil shows up.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Oops, not quite my last word yet.

I didn't say it wasn't silly; by and large it is the Creationists that have a problem, not the Scientists, so I propose this mainly to make them feel better. Better that Creationists believe that God intended the universe to appear old, because then they could not logically object to teaching science to our children. If they are going to insist on believing something that cannot be proven scientifically, at least let it be something that doesn't get in the way of science.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Harlequin

I hope you don't mind a few grammatical corrections...

Making verbs agree with subjects, and removing some double negatives.

Isn't the standard response to such a point "God created the universe as is" -- that is, that light was already en route to its destination, etc, with everything operating as though it already existed (including presumably meteor fragments)? I realise that this is a completely unfalsifiable argument, but I have read similar points before responded to in just such a manner.

__________________
"Nothing says 'obey me' like a head on a fence post."

Because that would make god a trickster and liar.

Who's to sat that the world wasn't created last Thursday?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

This thread would be better persued on t.o I think.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Another grammatical correction:

Should be:
These families are groups of asteroids with orbital parameters closer to each other than would be expected by chance.

"closer than", not "too close than".

Not at all. Thanks to you and Donnie B. for pointing them out. I edited the original post to correct the grammatical errors noted.

It will be. I wanted to start here. While t.o. will be a bit better geared on the creationism aspects, this forum is a bit stronger on the astronomy which is the most important thing to get correct.

I have now posted my article to talk.origins if anyone is interested. You can access it via groups.google.com (and do a search for the essay title) or use your favorite newsreader. Some browsers will let you use the a news:Xns9492A2D89F442usenet123mmcablecom@68.12.19. 6 or news:talk.origins to access it.

I see, your 'that' herlequin.

I lurk on T.O and post from time to time as Shooty.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

When fossils of extinct animals, like dinosaurs, started to be discovered in the 19th century, some people tried to save the literality of the Genesis by saying that God had created the world with ready-made fossils. As far as I can tell, this explanation never became popular.
So, while that is indeed a simple solution to the dichotomy, history indicates that it's a kind of explanation that people tend to reject.

Astronomy should be one science that everyone can appreciate. A person who looks through a telescope should be awed and humbled by what he sees, regardless of how he believes it got there. The benefit of amateur astronomy is that it puts everyone firmly in his place - or more specifically it knocks us off our place at the center of the universe. Humility is good for us.

It's good to have debates and discussions, especially when they are articulate and well-though-out like harlequin's essay. Just be warned that no matter what you say, some people are not going to accept it and will cling to the idea that the universe is very young. I just hope that when that happens you'll remember the paragraph above and avoid needlessly escalating a debate into an argument. After you state and prove a fact, if a person doesn't accept it there's nothing else you can do and there's no point in turning it into something personal.

At the end of the day we have a very important piece of common ground with creationists. We both can look through a telescope and be awed and humbled by what we see.

"Some people" would actually be Philip Gosse who wrote Omphalos which translate to navel or belly-button. I don't think he ever got any followers of any importance.

I will agree that the vast majority of the hard-core YECs will never change their minds. YECism will only die when the YECs do.

The essay, in the end is not really for them. Most people are not hard core YECs. And a lot of people think that the debate between two viable sides and thus are at risk at being fooled by "teach the controversy" tactics.

I agree. The essay will not dent their sheild of faith which is riveted to a literal view. Asteroids were not mentioned in Genesis so they're likely just dust in the big wind created on a "day" which they may choose to be suitable.

The essay is nicely done, btw.

YEC has had more than it's share of attention. It would be nice to see some astronomy as it relates to Genesis on an "old earth basis". Has this been done?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Well there is the old-earth creationist Hugh Ross. And there are certainly many interpretations of Genesis.

groups.google.com has the thread here.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

well....Lets assume that its a fact: God created the universe in x amount of days. We all Know time is relative; So how long is a "day" from gods perspective anyway......

Might be a bit late for it now :-? , but the second sentence there seems to need something verby done around "that the family to been affected", depending on just what you're trying to say. Also needs a comma after "believe them to be".
Addendum: "has passed for the family to have been affected"?

Good question, here's the answer: If you look at the 10 Commandments (the foundation of human morality and the U.S. Constitution) in Exodus 20:10-11, you will find the answer. A "day" from the Creator's perspective is the same as a "day" from a human's perspective. Paraphrase: You are to work 6 days and rest 1, because God created everything in 6 days and rested 1, and you were made in the image of God. Here a "day" has the same meaning both times. By the way, the 10 Commandments is the only thing that God ever wrote with His own hand. Everything else in the Bible was written by God through people, or by people inspired by God. So, if there are errors in the Bible, and I'm not saying there are, the least likely place to find one would be the portion written by God Himself, i.e. the 10 Commandments, including the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. Therefore, all of creation was made in 6, approximately 24-hour as we know them, days. Don't listen to people who try to use science to prove that God doesn't exists. They are trying to fill the God-shaped void in their heart with lies. If you already believe in God, then love Him with all your heart, all your strength, all your soul, and in this case all your mind. There are essentially three scenarios, 1) Someone created everything 2) Everything created itself and 3) There is no creation because all that is now always was. Most believers and non-believers conclude that 3) is not valid, therefore 1) or 2). 2) cannot be correct on its own merits for many reasons, such as you cannot get something from nothing, and the false-truths of evolution which 2) depends on, which ignore irreducible complexities. You can learn about those on your own. That only leaves only 1) Someone created everything, and we have a record of who the creator was, why He did it, and how He did it, the Bible.

__________________
"Survival of the fittest" or "Love your neighbor as yourself"?