Image from ICR article.
Posted on 10/23/2013 12:46:38 PM PDT by fishtank
Sun Paradox Challenges Old Earth Theory
by Tim Clarey, Ph.D. *
Scientists previously uncovered fossil algae in Archean rocks—evidence of life in a period that evolutionists date from 3.0 to 3.5 billion years ago.1 At that supposed time, the sun would have been 70 percent less luminous compared to today, making Earth's surface icy and uninhabitable.
But if those rocks are truly 3.0 to 3.5 billion years old, the meager solar energy delivered by the younger sun at that time would have prevented algae or any other life form from growing.
Attempting to come up with something to counter the icy-earth scenario, authors publishing in Science postulated that Earth was somehow warmed by high levels of greenhouse gases to compensate for the great lack of solar radiation.1 To investigate this possibility, the team sampled quartz veins from Archean rocks of the Dresser and Apex formations in Western Australia that were thought to be nearly 3.5 billion years old.
These quartz veins were formed by hydrothermal activity and contain trapped gases and fluids locked in crystals. The study authors assumed the trapped gases represent the ancient atmospheric gas levels.
However, the research results were discouraging, at best.
As researcher Dr. Ray Burgess from the University of Manchester said, "The amount of nitrogen in the [supposed ancient] atmosphere was too low to enhance the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide sufficiently to warm the planet."2 In fact, the study even showed that the so-called ancient atmosphere contained slightly less than today's levels of atmospheric nitrogen, making the "faint young sun paradox" even more perplexing to those committed to a billion-year history.
While the study authors point to a slight chance that the high carbon dioxide (CO2) pressures they found in the gaseous rocks might have helped sufficiently warm the earth, no conclusive research has yet proven this point.2 So, where did the 3.5 billion-year-old algae come from if it grew in a cold era without even the existence of atmosphere-warming gases?3
At the end of the day, when all the high-tech laboratory equipment has completed its tasks, the "faint young sun paradox" remains a "mystery" in the evolutionary time scale. But if these scientists considered that Earth is only thousands of years old—as clearly stated in the Bible—then there would be no need to reconcile old life with an old sun.
Creation scientists do not wrestle with this paradox, because the sun, planets, and Earth are all young and were created whole.4 Solar radiation on Day Four of the creation week, near the beginning of time itself, was not much different from today and perfectly suited for life—an explanation that frees scientists from this unnecessary conundrum.
References
Marty, B. et al. 2013. Nitrogen Isotopic Composition and Density of the Archean Atmosphere. Science. 342 (6154): 101-104.
Climate puzzle over origins of life on Earth. The University of Manchester press release, October 4, 2013.
Thomas, B. Can Solar 'Belch' Theory Solve Sun Paradox? Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org March 21, 2012, accessed October 22, 2013.
Lisle, J. The Solar System: The Sun. Acts & Facts. 42 (7): 10-12.
* Dr. Clarey is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on October 23, 2013.
Image from ICR article.
Even in the far north and far south, which because of the latitude get little heat from the sun, ice melts in the summer.
That would suggest that the equatorial regions could get enough heat to melt ice even if the sun had lower outputs.
And a reducing atmosphere (carbon dioxide, methane) would have significant greenhouse effect.
If it was created by a pair of docs, how many will be required to figure this out?
It was something that was instrumental in my development of being a global warming skeptic.
If we discard the old-Earth theory, then, we can simply discard ALL scientific data, because it ALL contradicts us! Yay!
The faint-sun theory means we don’t know everything. That is all. By the way, just as I believe that just God created Adam to appear as if he had aged in many ways (he was a man, not a zygote), I have no problem believing that God created a universe that looked extremely aged in many ways. This anti-scientific crap keeps an emnity between science and religion which is badly damaging to both.
“But if these scientists considered that Earth is only thousands of years old—as clearly stated in the Bible”
The bible does not state the age of the earth. Also one does not have to believe in evolution to believe the earth is older than a few thousand years. The truth is no one knows how old the eath is.
Citation please and, if you will, don't cite Jason Lisle please, he's the director of ICR.
First of all, there is a complete lack of understanding about Archea shown in this article. If Archea could turn the Marianas Trench into a well lit Disneyland where no sunlight can reach whatsoever, then the early earth had its own source of light and the spectrum was utterly differrent. Archea can live anywhere, everywhere, all the time, and they are creators.
All speculation. No one can know what happened so long ago, with any high degree of accuracy. Here’s my speculation:
Long ago, the Moon’s orbit was much closer to Earth. The gravitational tugs between the two bodies kept both hot. Over time, the Moon and Earth moved farther apart and slowed their rotations. There is much evidence that the Moon’s orbit is moving that body farther away from the Earth. Here’s the wonderful part. God put intelligent life on Earth just when the Moon can perfectly eclipse the Sun. Perfect balance; we take the Moon for granted but it does so much to help life exist on Earth.
“This anti-scientific crap keeps an emnity between science and religion which is badly damaging to both....”
what is anti scientific about the article?
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=10798
Life evolved on Earth during the Archean, between 3.8 and 2.4 billion years ago, but the weak Sun should have meant the planet was too cold for life to take hold at this time; scientists have therefore been trying to find an explanation for this conundrum, what is dubbed the ‘faint, young Sun paradox’.
“During the Archean the solar energy received at the surface of the Earth was about 20 to 25 % lower than present,” said study author, Dr Ray Burgess,
“We measured the amount and isotopic abundances of nitrogen and argon in the ancient air,” said Professor Marty. “Argon is a noble gas which, being chemically inert, is an ideal element to monitor atmospheric change. Using the nitrogen and argon measurements we were able to reconstruct the amount and isotope composition of the nitrogen dissolved in the water and, from that, the atmosphere that was once in equilibrium with the water.”
The researchers found that the partial pressure of nitrogen in the Archean atmosphere was similar, possibly even slightly lower, than it is at present, ruling out nitrogen as one of the main contenders for solving the early climate puzzle.
Dr Burgess added: “The amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere was too low to enhance the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide sufficiently to warm the planet. However, our results did give a higher than expected pressure reading for carbon dioxide – at odds with the estimates based on fossil soils – which could be high enough to counteract the effects of the faint young Sun and will require further investigation.”
"Creation scientists do not wrestle with this paradox, because the sun, planets, and Earth are all young and were created whole. Solar radiation on Day Four of the creation week, near the beginning of time itself, was not much different from today and perfectly suited for life—an explanation that frees scientists from this unnecessary conundrum."
By citation i mean give me a link to a peer-reviewed journal where the estimate of solar strength is published. Thanks
I missed the link in your earlier response. Thanks
orbit was much closer to Earth..”
yes, but measured and using uniformitarianism and billion years , the moon would be too close to earth, disrupting any chance of life.
Okay, read the last sentence in the quote from Dr. Burgess. Problem solved.
Dr Burgess added: “However, our results did give a higher than expected pressure reading for carbon dioxide – at odds with the estimates based on fossil soils – which could be high enough to counteract the effects of the faint young Sun and will require further investigation
Does “Evolution” or “Darwinism” as a theory “qualify” within the scientific constraints long defined by the scientific community ?
Is it, “Falsifiable” ?
Is it “Observable” ?
Is it “Repeatable” ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.