CRSQ Volume 17

Creation Research Society Quarterly Haec credimus: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is and rested on the seventh.— Exodus 20:11 VOLUME 17 DECEMBER, 1980 NUMBER 3 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY Copyright 1980 0 by Creation Research Society VOLUME 17 DECEMBER, 1980 NUMBER 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EDITORIAL BOARD The inconsistent Sun: How Has it Been Behaving, andWhatMightitdoNext? . 143 Harold L. Armstrong, Editor Hilton Hinderliter 4 Couper Street Kingston, Ontario, Canada Cosmology and Einstein’s Postulate of Relativity. .146 Harold S. Slusher Walter E. Lammerts, Research Editor Thomas G. Barnes . University of Texas at El Paso, Texas Significant Fossil Discoveries Since 1958: Duane T. Gish . Institute for Creation Research, Creationism Confirmed . 148 San Diego, Calif. Marvin L. Lubenow George F. Howe . Los Angeles Baptist College, Newhall, Calif. Notes on the Use of Statistics in the John W. Klotz. Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO. Debate of Creation versus Evolution. .160 John M. Andresen John N. Moore . Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Proiegomena to the Study of the Sediments . .162 Henry M. Morris . , . Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, Calif. Robert Morton William J. Tinkle . Anderson College (retired) North Manchester, Indiana Thoughts on the Structure of the Ark . .167 P. H. van der Werff John C. Whitcomb. Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Ind. Death and Niche Limits . .168 . Continental Telephone Laboratories, Emmett Williams . Mark W. Tippets Norcross, Georgia Notices of change of address, and failure to receive this publication On the Star of Bethlehem . .174 should be sent to Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr. 27 17 Cranbrook Road, Ann Gerardus D. Bouw Arbor, Michigan 48 104. Creation Research Society Quarterly is published by the Creation Asa Gray and Theistic Evolution . .181 Research Society, 2717 Cranbrook Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan Randall R. Hedtke 48104. 0 by Creation Research Society. Panorama of Science . .185 Creation Research Society Quarterly is indexed in the Christian Periodical Index. Book Review (1) . .188 COVER ILLUSTRATION Letters to the Editor (8) . .189 The picture on the front cover of this issue of the Quarterly is of a beetle Golofu porter-i. This is one of the horned beetles, of the kind discussed in an item by Lam- merts in an item in Panorama of Science, elsewhere in this issue of the Quarterly. The insect comes from Col- umbia. The one shown is a male, and the horns can be NEWSLETTER STILL AVAILABLE clearly seen. We hear that back issues of our newsletter, Creation As Lammerts points out, such extraordinary appen- Reflections and Selections, are still available. It will be dages as these horns are an embarrassment to evolu- recalled that the newsletter is being produced this year tionary theory. For while the insects do use them, the on a trial basis. The issue of June, 1980, circulated use is not at all vital; hence it should have nothing to do widely; and three other issues have been or are to be with survival. The Creationist view, that God likes prepared: in September, December, and in March 198 1. variety, and created these insects as He saw fit, is much Among other things, it contains items which are not more reasonable. suitable for the Quarterly, because of the long time Mr. Robert E. Jensen, of Encino, California, who has which its preparation takes. an M.S. in entomology, is presently working on taran- The four issues, including back issues if necessary, are tulas and scorpions, and has prepared a key to the scor- available to members and subscribers only. To receive pions of California, took this picture. Dr. G. Howe them, send $1.00 to C.R.S. Books, 5093 Williamsport helped in arranging for it. Drive, Norcross, Georgia 3007 1. VOLUME 17, DECEMBER, 1980 143 THE INCONSISTENT SUN: HOW HAS IT BEEN BEHAVING, AND WHAT MIGHT IT DO NEXT? HILTON HINDERLITER* Received 6 November, 1979 Various observations showing the sun’s behavior to be non-steady over time spans much less than millions of years are cited. The contraction, — which, in the author’s opinion, is gravitational, is just one of these. The problem of missing solar neutrinos is well known; some of these observations further contradict the model of solar density distribution derived from the nuclear-fusion model. Suggestions for further research are offered. Also, this latest evidence is cor- related with Scriptural prophecies concerning the sun. Introduction read a book on the subject-wherein it was claimed that A previous article’ dealt with the history of theories results are accurate within 10 % -so there was no use in explaining the source of the sun’s radiant energy, the my disputing it. Just how much of our so-called science shortcomings of the nuclear-fusion model, and the re- amounts only to faith in someone’s (possibly-biased) opi- cent discovery of solar contraction. In reading that ar- nion? ticle, one who is familiar with Dr. Eddy’s publications* To briefly scrutinize Eddy’s “outer-layer only” ap may wonder if I am totally ignorant of the interpreta- preach, I would question whether this is anything but ad-hoc speculation. In light of the neutrino dilemma, it tion which he gives to the contraction-one which is is certain that none of the theorists has any knowledge quite different from my own. Well, I am neither ig- of what’s going on inside the sun (except that not many norant of it, nor wishing to suppressit. In fact, it serves as neutrinos are being produced). To trust another’s inter- a good starting point for the present analysis. pretation whose only basis is a belief in vast ages-this Eddy (as well as other authorities with whom I have is unwise, to say the least. Maybe the outer layers are communicated) has avoided the direct clash between contracting more than the core, but maybe the core is contraction on the one hand, and the billion-year myth (BYM) on the other, by believing that: (1) The contrac- contracting faster still-no one knows! As for the contraction’s being cyclic, I looked over tion has not been going on indefinitely, but is only one phase of expand-contract cycles; and (2) Only the outer Dr. Eddy’s published data,* but found no hint of a turn- layers of the sun are involved in the decrease in visual around at either end of the range (years 1836 to 1953). size of the solar disk. The question which immediately There may be a slight buckle in the graph from 1875 to arises is, “Why does he so believe?” Well, for one thing, 1885, but nothing is evident detracting from a steady he does say that he believes the sun to be between 4.5 lessening trend in size. It might be well to mention that and 5 billion years old3; this, for the sake of consistency, some have disputed Eddy’s contraction data; but he has can leave him no choice but such restricted interpreta- shown that measurements of the solar diameter along tions. On the other hand, I will credit him with great different axes (referred to as horizontal and vertical) all honesty in his admission, “However . I suspect that show a steady decrease, as do also the observations we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of recorded at different locations. In being careful to avoid the Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the systematic errors, Eddy has done a thorough job of way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict making sure that such things as changes in atmospheric with that”3. This attitude toward Bishop Ussher’s conditions could not be making a constant-size sun only chronology is truly remarkable, considering that appear smaller.* Ussher’s name has been mentioned in scientific circles (at least since I’ve been on the scene) only as an object of Much, Much Too Fast! ridicule. In his reports, Eddy has given only one data-related The only justification for Eddy’s acceptance of billion reason for his belief in cycles (I asked him specifically year ages appears in his allusion to paleontology. Now, about this in a private communication, but have as yet personally, I find it disappointing (but not uncommon) learned of no others): the magnitude of the contraction to hear experts admitting that evidence in their field rate. And just how great is it? Approximately 0.1% per fails to support evolution and/or vast ages-yet adding century. That may not sound like much (It certainly that they rely on the conclusions of spokesmen from won’t make the sun visibly smaller in our lifetimes), but other fields. The pressing question is whether or not it is I 70 times the rate of contraction which Helmholtz arguments derived from those other fields are any more calculated as sufficient for generating all of the sun’s ra- valid. I remember an evolutionary biologist with whom diant energy! So if all of the sun is shrinking together, I was one day discussing radiometric dating. He seemed then there are orders of magnitude more energy being to know little of the theory of how dating is done; and, generated inside it, than is being emitted from it. From when I explained that errors in any of several major the BYM viewpoint, I would have to agree that this con- assumptions could render the results completely mean- dition must not have persisted for billions of years (long ingless, he shrugged it off with the statement that he had ago something would have had to give).

Load more