The Genesis Planet

September 02, 2008

A world dubbed the Genesis Planet was created in the 1982 Star Trek film “The Wrath of Khan.”

In the story, humans meddle with Mother Nature to transform a lifeless world into a paradise at a greatly accelerated pace from normal planetary evolution. Life, too, evolves at an accelerated pace. And so the Star Trek crew witnesses life unfolding before their very eyes. 

Although science fiction, there could be a Genesis Planet right in our galactic backyard, only 10 light-years away. The world orbits the southern star Epsilon Eridani, which is the third closest star to Earth viewable without a telescope, shining at third magnitude.  The planet is only 800 million years old -- too young for life to evolve into complex organisms, but the seeds of life could already be stirring.

I’m jumping the gun here because the planet in question is slightly more massive that Jupiter, made mostly of hydrogen, helium and trace amounts of methane, ammonia, and other elements. Like Jupiter, it has no solid surface.

But, it’s possible that the gas giant has a system of potentially habitable moons. For now, detecting such moons is vastly beyond our current telescopic capabilities.

Still, computer simulations predict that satellite birth is common around Jovian-like planets; moons can form from debris disk encircling the newborn planet. It’s sort of an HO model train version of much larger circumstellar disks that are the birthplaces for planets.

Even though actual satellite systems whirling around our biggest gas giants -- Jupiter and Saturn -- are quite different, the total mass in both systems is about one hundredth of one percent (0.01 percent) of their respective parent planet's mass.  This could very well be a common moon-to-planet ratio among gas giants. 

Now, if most of the circumplanetary debris go into making one body, a moon as big as Mars could form around a Jupiter-sized planet.
 
What’s also intriguing is that the two largest gas giants in the solar system host a family of satellites that are chemically and geologically quite diverse.  There’s Jupiter’s volcanic moon Io, Europa with a likely subsurface ocean of water, as well as Saturn’s largest moon Titan with its dense and organic-rich atmosphere.

Titan has been compared to what Earth may have chemically looked like before life appeared nearly 4 billion years ago. The surface is coated in organic compounds, and it has a dense atmosphere of nitrogen.

It's even larger than Mercury, so the moon has a hydrological cycle of liquid methane and ethane rainfall that forms lakes and rivers. The lack of many craters indicates that Titan's surface may be relatively young due to Earth-like processes of tectonics, erosion, winds, and volcanism.

The problem is that, at one billion miles from the Sun, Titan is a frigid place at nearly minus 300 degrees Fahrenheit. But if we could move Titan closer to the Sun, astrobiology could explode across the moon, much like Trek’s “Genesis Planet.”

This could be exactly what is happening for any hypothetical Titan-like world orbiting Epsilon Eridani’s giant planet. The world would be much warmer than Titan, and least for part of the planet’s seven-year orbit about the star.  This is greatly complicated by the fact that the planet is in a looping eccentric orbit that carries it as close to the star as Earth is from our sun, and as far as Jupiter is from the sun. 

What’s tantalizing is that the planet’s orbit carries it close to the star's habitable zone -- the region where temperatures are warm enough for liquid water to remain on the surface of a planet with an atmosphere.

Because of the planet’s eccentric orbit, any satellites would experience long cold winters and brief hot summers. Still, a large moon might remain cozy for life over the long winter.

It could have a blanket of atmosphere thick enough to retain heat, especially if it contained greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane.  The moon could have geothermal activity, or heat could also be induced by gravitational tidal pumping (as is the case with Jupiter’s moon Io and Saturn’s moon Enceladus).  Also, subterranean life on would not be as affected by the wild temperature swings.

When the Sun was 800 million years old, the very first primitive microorganisms may have begun populating the cooling Earth, and perhaps Mars too. A young, comparatively massive Titan-like moon could be a world where the first steps in the emergence of life are taking place right now.

This is probably the most compelling reason to identify and then ultimately explore, with artificially intelligent probes, the emerging biosphere of such a moon. The staggering technical challenges of interstellar spaceflight aside, such exploration could at last address one of the most fundamental questions in science: how does life begin in the universe?

Image Credits: G.Bacon/NASA, Caltech, A.Feild/NASA

Comments

[Kelley]

Hi my question is where do you guys get that the earth and planets are million of years old when the bible clearly states if you have stuided it that the universe and earth ect..are between 6 to 8 thousands years old.
As you can see many pepole do not belive in evolution .
I think you guys should stick with the facts that ARE ture
and let deside for our selves howlife began and quit trying to force the evolution theory on us in school exspealialy.

[Obvious Man]

Sorry to everyone else, just had to respond to the previous post.

Understand that I'm not going to mock you. I'm just going to point out some small issues with your facts. I hope you take the time to consider them.

1/ The 8,000 year old earth is an arbitrary number calculated by a middle-ages scholar that has since been discarded even by Christian scholars. The Bible does *not* in fact say how old the earth is. A few religious leaders continue to try to do so, relying on ignorance, or being ignorant themselves.

2/ This has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, which some scientists do not accept. This is science, and it truly has no bias. Science is not a religion. It is always arguing with itself, testing, re-arguing. Those theories that hold have been tested and retested to a degree that proponents of a literal reading of the six days of creation has never been forced to endure. Please show some respect.

3/ Interesting that you should demand people stick to the facts. What are those facts you'd like people to stick to, and what evidence do you have for them? If you believe them on faith, why those facts? Why not believe that the moon is made of cheese, or that the world is flat, as people were wont to do before people began demanding a higher standard of evidence? Why is an 8,000 year old Earth so important to you?

4/ I have nothing against Christianity. Just ignorance. Let us ignore for the moment that the Bible does not give the Earth an age and simply focus on this question: are the six days of creation literally six days, or is it figurative or poetic speech that the Bible often uses to make a point? If God *did* make the earth millions of years ago and then chose to speak figuratively in terms of days so that the ancient Hebrews could comprehend those words, so what? What evidence do you have for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1? Surely you would not take a literal interpretation of Psalm 137:9?

[Ray]

Dear Kelly

Scientific esitmates for the age of the Earth and universe have changed with ever better research. We are the first generation to pin down the age of the universe to 13.7 billion years.

Unlike the biblical value of approximately 8,000 years, scientists didn't start out with a preconceived notion of how old the universe should be. They kept revising their age estimates in light of new knowledge.

The universe as described in the Bible reflects the ancient geocentric or Earth-centered model of the cosmos. This was disproved by astronomical observations by Galileo almost 400 years ago.

The concept of evolution simply mean that the universe changes over time. That's as incontrovertible the pull of gravity.

Most of the world's major religions fully accept evolution as the handiwork of God.

But if you insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible then you have to show that the sun goes around the Earth because the sun stood still in the sky for one day (whatever that means!) as described in Joshua 10:13-14.

[Kelley]

1/ The 8,000 year old earth is an arbitrary number calculated by a middle-ages scholar that has since been discarded even by Christian scholars.

 
No, sorry, you are mistaken. You are trying to group all “Christians” into the group that does not believe the Bible.
Anyone that can add can figure out the age of the earth by adding up the dates in the Bible. So it has not been discarded by “Christian scholars”.

 
2/ This has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, which some scientists do not accept. This is science, and it truly has no bias.

Quote from the article.

Titan has been compared to what Earth may have chemically looked like before life appeared nearly 4 billion years ago. The surface is coated in organic compounds, and it has a dense atmosphere of nitrogen.

This is from the evolution theory. The evolution theory completely contradicts the Biblical teaching of the creation.
 

3/ Interesting that you should demand people stick to the facts. What are those facts you'd like people to stick to, and what evidence do you have for them? If you believe them on faith, why those facts? Why not believe that the moon is made of cheese, or that the world is flat, as people were wont to do before people began demanding a higher standard of evidence? Why is an 8,000 year old Earth so important to you?
 

Here are some facts:
1. Science proves that humans can only produce humans, dogs only produce dogs, trees only produce trees. There are no missing links.
2. FORMATION OF THE EARTH:
The second law of thermodynamics states that everything tends toward disorder. Every evolutionary theory that describes this event violates this law. Merely adding energy does not negate this fact.
3. Titan was mentioned in the article; Did you know that: Titan, Saturn’s largest moon, has long been known to have an atmosphere, but its composition puzzles long-age cosmologists. The sun’s UV radiation breaks down methane (CH4), and the hydrogen would escape Titan’s weak gravity. In fact, methane should last only for about 10,000 years. And a major by-product should be an ocean of liquid ethane hundreds of metres thick. Yet Titan still has methane clouds, while large areas of liquid ethane are nowhere to be found.
 
4. Why do 2 of our solar systems planets spin backwards in violation of the law of angular momentum? “Venus and Uranus”, are the planets that spin backwards. If the evolution theory is correct? (“big bang” everything is spinning together in a frictionless environment.)

4/ I have nothing against Christianity. Just ignorance. Let us ignore for the moment that the Bible does not give the Earth an age and simply focus on this question: are the six days of creation literally six days, or is it figurative or poetic speech that the Bible often uses to make a point? If God *did* make the earth millions of years ago and then chose to speak figuratively in terms of days so that the ancient Hebrews could comprehend those words, so what? What evidence do you have for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1? Surely you would not take a literal interpretation of Psalm 137:9?
 

The problem with people like Sagan and Darwin was that they didn’t understand (or wouldn’t accept) that there was a perfect world to begin with — it was very good.
However, in Adam we rebelled (Romans 5), and the resulting judgment of death and the Curse changed the very good world into one that is groaning in pain till now (Romans 8:22).
When looking at this present world, these men weren’t looking at the nature of God, but the results of our sin! What a difference.
The God of the Bible, the God of mercy, grace and love, sent His one and only Son to be a man (but God nonetheless), to become our sin-bearer so that we could be saved from sin and its final effect of eternal separation from God:
‘For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Corinthians 5:21).
There’s no doubt — the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel.
Let this be a challenge to the Church to return to the loving, holy, righteous God of the Bible.
 
Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
 
As far as the verse quoted in Psalm 137:9, you have taken it out of context. Which is what happens all the time when people try to refute the Bible. It is talking about how happy the Jews would be if they did that to the Babylonian children way back when the Babylonians took the Jews it to captivity.
 
Psa 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, O destroyed one, O the happiness of him who repayeth to thee thy deed, That thou hast done to us.
Psa 137:9 O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock!
 

In conclusion: If the earth is not as young as the Bible teaches than the Bible is one huge lie. To date I have found no lies in the Bible. And true science confirms what the Bible teaches. And as far as Dating methods go:
In all dating methods the initial amount is an assumption, the estimate of contamination is an assumption, and the overall rate is an assumption. The only things which can be known for sure are the present amount and the present rate.
Unless you estimate the initial amount correctly, the average rate correctly, and the amount of contamination correctly, your answer will be wrong . And depending on your assumptions, it could be very, very wrong.
There are actually very few dating methods which seem to indicate that the earth is extremely old. On the other hand there are many dating methods which indicate that the earth is quite young, then evolution is obviously a myth and creation becomes the only logical alternative. Could this be the primary reason that only those methods which seem to indicate very old ages are acceptable?
Here is one, "Young earth dating method”.
Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.

[Bjoern]

Since apparently no one else bothers, I'll take the bite and answer "Kelley" (at least some of his points - his comment was so long it would take hours to answer everything!).

"You are trying to group all “Christians” into the group that does not believe the Bible. Anyone that can add can figure out the age of the earth by adding up the dates in the Bible. So it has not been discarded by “Christian scholars”."

Different Christians take different parts of the Bible literal. Taking different parts of the Bible literal than you is not the same as "not believe the Bible". And adding up the dates in the Bible is not as straightforward as you claim: for example, in Genesis 1, it's not even clear if the word "day" used there does indeed mean a 24-hour period, or if it could not also mean a very long period of time!

You, too, probably don't that the Bible literally everywhere. If you did, you'd have to have a geocentric worldview, as already pointed out (and ignored by you).

"Quote from the article.

Titan has been compared to what Earth may have chemically looked like before life appeared nearly 4 billion years ago. The surface is coated in organic compounds, and it has a dense atmosphere of nitrogen.

This is from the evolution theory."

Not, this is *not* from the evolution theory. The theory of evolution in itself does say nothing about the age of the earth, about when life appeared on earth etc. It only deals with the *diversification* of life (the appearance of new species etc.) Please learn what the theory of evolution actually says before trying to attack it!

"The evolution theory completely contradicts the Biblical teaching of the creation."

No, it contradicts only your *interpretation* of what the Bible teaches. Most Christians think it doesn't conflict with Biblical teachings. And simply claiming that these people don't believe the Bible is wrong, as already explained above.

"Science proves that humans can only produce humans, dogs only produce dogs, trees only produce trees."

Wrong, science does not "prove" that. I wonder where you got that from? Answers in Genesis?

Science actually shows (not "proves" - nothing is "proved" in science) that offspring will always differ slighty from the parents. That's called "variation".

And if you want to argue that small variations, accumulated over time, can't lead to something completely new, please explain how the Roman language (Latin) changed over time into such diverse languages as Italian, French, Romanian etc.

"There are no missing links."

Only if you deny the validity of every single missing link (which are in the thousands) which palaeontologists have discovered over the years.

Let's start with Archaeopteryx. And, please, before you simply cite the nonsense which Answers in Genesis says about that fossil, educate yourself a bit. Answers in Genesis simply doesn't say the whole truth - the leave out crucial parts!

"2. FORMATION OF THE EARTH:
The second law of thermodynamics states that everything tends toward disorder."

First, what you say here has little to do with the formation of the earth. Second, the second law of thermodynamics does *not* say that. What it *does* say is (in one of many equivalent formulations) that in *closed* systems, *entropy* *can not decrease*.

Note:
1) *closed* systems. The Earth is not a closed system. In open systems, the second law does *not* forbid decreases of entropy.
2) *entropy*, not "disorder". The two are not the same - although in some cases, disorder means *roughly* the same as entropy.
3) *can not decrease*, not "tends towards" (which would mean "can only increase"). I hope you see the difference?

So, your short sentence contained three *factual* errors. You can't blame this on our "evolutionary worldview" or whatever. What the second law of thermodynamics says is a *fact*, it does not depend on worldviews (actually, the second law, as formulated above, can be *mathematically* proven...)

"Merely adding energy does not negate this fact."

"Merely" adding energy does indeed negate that. The second law, formulated for a general system, says that the change in entropy, can not be smaller than minus the heat energy which is transferred to the system, divided by its temperature. In other words, the change in entropy can not be smaller than a given *negative number*, if energy is added to the system. But that it can not be smaller than a given negative number does not in any way negate the fact that the change in entropy *can* be negative (in your words: disorder can decrease). I hope this little bit of elementary math wasn't about your head?

"Yet Titan still has methane clouds, while large areas of liquid ethane are nowhere to be found."

I don't know about the methane clouds, but liquid ethane has indeed been found:
http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1/86_read-13154/

"Why do 2 of our solar systems planets spin backwards in violation of the law of angular momentum?"

That does in no way violate that law. Why on earth do you think it does?!? Please present your calculations which show that backward spinning would violate that conservation law.
(BTW, the law you mean isn't called "the law of angular momentum", that makes no sense - it is called "the law of conservation of angular momentum". Again: please get at least the most *basic* facts straight, instead of attacking things you obviously know essentially nothing about!)

"If the evolution theory is correct? (“big bang” everything is spinning together in a frictionless environment.)"

First, the big bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution (read above where I explained what that theory is about!). Second, the big bang has nothing to do with "everything spinning together in a frictionless environment". Again: get an education before you spout out such nonsense!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

"However, in Adam we rebelled (Romans 5), and the resulting judgment of death and the Curse changed the very good world into one that is groaning in pain till now (Romans 8:22).
..... The God of the Bible, the God of mercy, grace and love,"

That's about theology, not about science - but I could not let this stand. You tell me that because *one* man (and one woman, which you strangely ignore here) did disobey God *one* time, God's *whole* creation, including not only billions of humans (which obviously have no responsibility for what Adam supposedly did do!), but the whole of creation, including trillions of animals, have to "groan in pain"? And then you go on to say that the God of the Bible is a God of "mercy, grace and love"? Man, you really have a strange idea of what "mery, grace and love" mean...

"There’s no doubt — the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel."

Hundreds of millions of Christians beg to differ. But wait, all these Christians don't believe the Bible, right?

"Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp"

All of which are refuted at www.talkorigins.org. (taking a quick glance at the page, I see they even include the *totally* ridiculous argument about sodium in the ocean! They admit that making the same argument with other minerals would give even much younger ages - but don't tell you that these ages are in some cases only some hundred years! That obviously invalidates this dating technique, if you didn't notice...)

At this place, there usually comes the claim that the talkorigins archive can't be trusted etc. If you believe this, please answer me a simple question: why does the talkorigins archive always provide links to creationist sites, so that people can judge for themselves what sounds more convincing, whereas Answers in Genesis etc. almost never provide links to "evolutionist" sides, i. e. they try to keep their readers away from other points of views? So, what side is more trustworthy...?

"As far as the verse quoted in Psalm 137:9, you have taken it out of context. Which is what happens all the time when people try to refute the Bible. It is talking about how happy the Jews would be if they did that to the Babylonian children way back when the Babylonians took the Jews it to captivity."

And again bad theology. Don't you realize that even in context, these verses say essentially that bashing the babies of your enemies on rocks is a *good* thing? What was this again about a God of "mercy, grace and love"...?

"If the earth is not as young as the Bible teaches than the Bible is one huge lie."

No, simply your *interpretation* of the Bible is a huge lie. Try to realize that *everyone* who reads the Bible interprets it somehow, that *noone* *ever* takes it *totally* literally. If you start to realize that simple fact, there is hope left for you...

"In all dating methods the initial amount is an assumption,"

Wrong. E. g. in isochron dating, no assumption about the initial amount is necessary. The method even allows you to calculate the initial amount from the measured data! Educate yourself.

"the estimate of contamination is an assumption,"

And again isochron dating checks automatically for contamination. Educate yourself.

"and the overall rate is an assumption."

I think you mean the radioactive decay rates. And again, that's not an assumption. Radioactive decay rates depend only on fundamental physical constants. In the last decades, people have checked (1) if fundamental physical constants change with time (result: they don't), and (2) if anything else could influence radioactive decay rates (result: in *very* extreme circumstances, which in no way were even remotely present ever on Earth, the decay rates could be changed by a *tiny* amount, less than 1%).

"There are actually very few dating methods which seem to indicate that the earth is extremely old."

Well, there are several independend radioactive dating methods which all come to the conclusion of extreme age. Then there are several other dating methods for the age of the sun and of other stars which also come to the conclusion of extreme age. Then there are yet other dating methods for the age of the universe as a whole which also come to the conclusion of extreme age. And guess what? The results of all these different methods are all consistent with each other! A huge conspiracy, you now probably claim?

"On the other hand there are many dating methods which indicate that the earth is quite young,..."

All of those are *heavily* flawed. Educate yourself.

"then evolution is obviously a myth and creation becomes the only logical alternative."

False dichotomy.

"Could this be the primary reason that only those methods which seem to indicate very old ages are acceptable?"

No, the primary reason is simply that the methods which are claimed to give young ages are nonsense. See e. g. the sodium example above.

The "radio halo" argument is, BTW, also addressed in the talkorigins archive...

Oh, and a final remark: don't bother to reply to me if you haven't first bothered to educate yourself, and show that.
Put simply: if you reply in less than, say, two weeks, I'll know that you haven't invested enough time for getting actual knowledge about all these topics.

[Will]

Lawl owned. Even grade 11 physics students know the basic definition of the second law of thermodynamics. Educate yourself indeed.

[Ray]

For the record, the Roman Catholic Church, which represents 58 percent of the world's christians, fully embraces evolution.

In fact there will be a Vatican sponsored congress on evolution March 3-7 2009 in Rome, marking the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's publication of "The Origin of the Species."

And, the Vatican says that creationists can stay home (in other words, live it or live with it!).

Now, the Church once persecuted Galileo for insisting that the Earth went around the sun because it contradicted biblical scripture. But they got smart in light of new scientific evidence, and ultimately apologized. Same goes for evolution.

check out:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804713.htm

excerpt:

"Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers 'wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific' and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments 'that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite' supporters of creationism and intelligent design."

[Kelley]

Sorry I took so long to get back to this;
I took a look at the web site,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
WOW, I was very impressed with the double talk. What they try to describe as the big bang is not taught in any school book from kindergarten to college. WOW, and you tell me to get an education… those guys must have been smoking something when they wrote that article. And again, you, like most other people do when faced with the truth that you refuse to accept, have twisted the facts.

Just because you say I need at least 2 weeks to research your claims before I reply or I am an idiot, does not mean that I really do need 2 weeks. And I know that you did not actually say "idiot", but you did imply it.
I am sorry that you are so angry. I should not have poked holes in the sacred cow of evolutionism, but it is so easy. Get a grip on your emotions… it is just a theory, not a fact.
You know faith is a funny thing. It is the one thing that does not need evidence that people will die for and refuse to accept truth.

Yes, I do have faith, however, I have evidence and truth to support my faith. All the evolutionist has is well faith. You see everything science gets right has already been done, described, or has already been validated in the Bible. Which was written long before Rome came into existence. You attacked me, (All but called me an idiot), and that is ok, Sometimes I do make mistakes, and I am willing to make amends for it or accept my mistake and change, but on this issue, The facts stand. I don’t need 2 weeks to respond to a personal assault.
You see, we both have the same rocks to look at, the evolutionist would rather believe he/she came from a rock than a creator God. Both models (creationism, and evolutionism), have to be taken on faith. I choose to believe the Bible, it does confirm science, demonstrate able, and repeatable, science. You want good science????Try this one on for size…

I quoted " "Why do 2 of our solar systems planets spin backwards in violation of the law of angular momentum?""
You replied with,

"That does in no way violate that law. Why on earth do you think it does?!? Please present your calculations which show that backward spinning would violate that conservation law."

You are trying to mislead true people of science. The law of angular momentum simply states that an object in motion must continue to spin in the same direction it started in, any pieces breaking off must spin in the same direction. They have no choice in the matter. You sir have no understanding of the law of angular momentum. So putting double talk aside if you just let the science speak for itself then there is only one conclusion; facts win over theories every time. Educate yourself indeed, Please!? You may want to try middle school; because high school is way beyond you. And yes, I can attack your lack of intellect just like you can to me. Does that make it true what I said? Most likely not but because it has been said with no proof to back it up you have put the burden of proof on me. So, no matter how truthful I am by just stating the facts you twist them by a simple statement like,
"Please present your calculations which show that backward spinning would violate that conservation law."

If you had any idea of it you would not have stated that comment, (which is exactly what it is), no truth is necessary to question a fact. It is ok to ask a question of the facts to come to an understanding of what the facts say. So in your words, Please!!?? Get an education.
If you still want me to, I will take the time to get the evidence necessary to refute some of your claims.
BTW, I could not find the salt article you referenced… believe it or not most people would rather believe a lie than the truth, because they would then have to come up with an answer for their actions.

[Ray]

Dear Kelly,

You don't have to do any research on the angular momentum question, other than reading Newton's First Law of Motion.

Simply go to a soccer game and see how often the ball abruptly changes its direction of spin after it is kicked.

The same physics happened when a protoplanetary body slammed into Venus billions of years ago and reversed its direction of spin. momentum was transferred from the impacting body to Venus.

You'll also see the same basic physics in action while watching momentum transferred to a billiard ball after it is hit with the cue ball in a game pf pool.

[Kelley]

no sir,... were you there? or did you know someone who was? did you see it? no. where is the dent? there should be a dent in the planet from the collision. also the inverse square law cancels that out. the planet would have disintegrated on impact. please let the facts speak for them selves. when you try to put your own beliefs into the mix true science suffers and the learning stops. if you could just wrap your tinny little brain around the concept of what you see as opposed to the lies you are told and stand up for true science you would learn and understand so much it blow you away.

[Ray]

Kelly,

Seeing is believing.

Go out into your backyard during the next full moon and look up. The moon is pockmarked with circular impact basins.

Next, go to the Astronomy Picture of the Day online

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/lib/aptree.html

and peruse dozens of photographs of solar system objects that are covered with similar impact craters.

This observational evidence, combined with supercomputer modeling of the dynamical formation of the planets, all support the same conclusion: that the solar system went through a period of heavy asteroid and meteorite bombardment 4 billion years ago.

Venus' recycling volcanic surface in only 100 million years old, so ancient impact scars were erased long ago.

And yes, there's no CNN file footage of the birth of the planets.

But we are observing these processes now taking place around newborn stars with embryonic planetary systems. And, that's because the universe continues evolving.

In our solar system we are like a detective that arrives on a crime scene after the event, and dispassionately pieces together the clues without any a priori conclusion as to how the crime was committed.

The entire solar system is a magnificent geologic history book of how the planets have evolved over 4.5 billion years.

The truth speaks to us in the silent message of starlight.