Creation Conversion: The Turning Point (Spike Psarris)

Institute for Creation Research ^ | June 2014 | ICR staff

[fishtank]

Creation Conversion: The Turning Point

Last month in our second Creation Conversion article, Dr. Vernon Cupps described how he came to a young-earth view of creation after he took the time to investigate the actual scriptural, observational, and experimental evidence. Here’s another conversion—this time from Spike Psarris in the field of astronomy.

I was an atheist and an evolutionist well into my adult years, working as an engineer in the military space program. One day a Christian co-worker challenged me on my atheism: “You believe in the laws of physics, don’t you?”

“Yes, we use them here every day,” I replied.

“Then how do you reconcile them with the Big Bang?” He didn’t explain what he meant, but he didn’t have to—I suddenly realized that fundamental physics and the Big Bang model don’t get along very well. This was a mental version of scales falling off my eyes as I realized I believed mutually incompatible things. I was surprised, and wondered: Why couldn’t I see this problem before?

[fishtank]

From the article:

.....

After almost a year of doing this, eventually I had to admit that the evidence (scientific, historical, etc.) did not agree with my atheism. Instead, the biblical account of history was true. I didn’t like this, though. If the Bible were true, then I was a sinner who deserved judgment. But I had to admit that this is where the evidence led.

After struggling with this for a while, I finally realized that yes, I am a sinner. And God knows my sin better than I do. But He also loves me enough to have sent His Son to pay for it in my place. I realized that, truly, the gospel is Good News. What better news could there be? At that point, I accepted the Lord and became a Christian.

There are many people who believe in creation because they are Christians. I am one for whom the opposite sequence is true—I became a creationist first, and a Christian afterward.

* Mr. Psarris has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Massachusetts, and was formerly an engineer in the United States military space program. For more information, visit his website at

creationastronomy.com

Cite this article: No Author. 2014. Creation Conversion: The Turning Point. Acts & Facts. 43 (6).

[fishtank]

ICR article image.

[fishtank]

Spake Psarris website

http://creationastronomy.com/

[fishtank]

http://creationastronomy.com/controversy/

[Blood of Tyrants]

The accidental orbital capture of objects is rubbish or we would have thousands of captured asteroids in orbit around the earth. As it is, satellites need periodic adjustments to stay in orbit.

[OldNavyVet]

Moon rocks tell us that the Moon is 4.5 billion years old.

Go figure!

[TexasGator]

“As it is, satellites need periodic adjustments to stay in orbit.”

You do realize that the earth’s rotation is slowing and the moon is moving farther away? Without adjustments we are doomed.

[BrandtMichaels]

Items 65 thru 68 from: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe, Creation 31(3):18, 2009. See further corroboration: “At Long Last, Moon’s Core ‘Seen’”; http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/at-long-last-moons-core-seen.html?rss=1

Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.

The moon’s former magnetic field. Rocks sampled from the moon’s crust have residual magnetism that indicates that the moon once had a magnetic field much stronger than earth’s magnetic field today. No plausible ‘dynamo’ hypothesis could account for even a weak magnetic field, let alone a strong one that could leave such residual magnetism in a billions-of-years time-frame. The evidence is much more consistent with a recent creation of the moon and its magnetic field and free decay of the magnetic field in the 6,000 years since then. Humphreys, D.R., The moon’s former magnetic field—still a huge problem for evolutionists, Journal of Creation 26(1):5–6, 2012.

Ghost craters on the moon’s maria (singular mare: dark ‘seas’ formed from massive lava flows) are a problem for the assumed long ages. Enormous impacts evidently caused the large craters and lava flows within those craters, and this lava partly buried other, smaller impact craters within the larger craters, leaving ‘ghosts’. But this means that the smaller impacts can’t have been too long after the huge ones, otherwise the lava would have flowed into the larger craters before the smaller impacts. This suggests a very narrow time frame for all this cratering, and by implication the other cratered bodies of our solar system. They suggest that the cratering occurred quite quickly. See Fryman, H., Ghost craters in the sky, Creation Matters 4(1):6, 1999; A biblically based cratering theory (Faulkner); Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe.

[TexasGator]

“Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon “

No evidence exists ...

[Kirkwood]

Earth did capture thousands of asteroids. They all eventually smashed into the moon or the earth. Why do you think there are a bazillion craters visible on the lunar surface? The earth would look the same if not for erosion.

[afsnco]

Thanks, fishtank.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The author is referring to the capture of celestial objects in perfect orbit, not simply smashing into the planet.

[reed13k]

bfl

[wbarmy]

The first real change in my opinions bout old earth and young earth creationism came about when granite and polonium halos were discussed. One of the funniest arguments against polonium halos ended with “this hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth.” If one fact shows up the theory, maybe those other lines of evidence need to be reviewed.

The kicker for evolution was the fact that once a new species (change in chromosome number) occurred, who the heck did it mate with. Hopeful monsters aside, the mathematics alone make it impossible.

[TexasGator]

” No plausible ‘dynamo’ hypothesis could account for even a weak magnetic field, let alone a strong one that could leave such residual magnetism in a billions-of-years time-frame.”

Depends on your definition of ‘plausible’. A few decades back there was no plausible explanation for the sun lasting more than a few thousand years because it did not contain enough fuel to burn longer than that.

[BrandtMichaels]

Your statements contradict each other. What percentage of asteroids could attain a perfect orbit since even our satellites need adjustments?

[OldNavyVet]

Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old.

Scientist's tell us that ... "The Moon flew off its parent after a giant impact. Because it stayed small, cold and undisturbed it gives a better picture of the past than does its parent. ... The Earth's turmoil makes it harder to trace its own origin. It's oldest rocks, found in Greenland and Western Australia are just under four billion years old."

Can you provide the source of your Moon volcanic activity evidence?

[BrandtMichaels]

Scientist’s tell us that ... “The Moon flew off its parent after a giant impact. Because it stayed small, cold and undisturbed it gives a better picture of the past than does its parent. ... The Earth’s turmoil makes it harder to trace its own origin. It’s oldest rocks, found in Greenland and Western Australia are just under four billion years old.”

Easily one of the most laughable theories purported by ‘scientists’

2 links regarding lunar volcanic activity:

http://www.space.com/12419-moon-side-rare-volcanoes.html

http://www.universetoday.com/94583/scientists-suggest-evidence-of-recent-lunar-volcanism/

[OldNavyVet]

I found this at www.lei.usra.edu

“What evidence is there of volcanism on other planets?
Moon:  Our closest neighbor has small volcanos, fissures (breaks in the crust), and extensive flows of basalt, a fine-grained dark volcanic rock. The large dark basins that you can see on the Moon are the maria — areas of these lava flows. However, all these volcanic features are old. There are no active volcanic features on the Moon. Most of the volcanic activity took place early in the Moon’s history, before about 3 billion years ago. The most recent lava flow occurred about 1 billion years ago.”

[Kirkwood]

Yeah, that’s my point. They won’t be captured in earth orbit.