Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Authored By  :
Published On :
Last Updated :




Continuing our discussion from part one, as I have already explained to you, while due to its very nature, modern science requires flexibility, and can very often fluctuate in its opinions from one day to the next, by comparison, the Bible informs us that both God and His Word are immutable. In other words, they are unchanging and constant. In the set of verses below, we are also told that God does not lie, and that His Word is established forever. In short, if God says that something is true, then it is. Likewise, if He states that something will come to pass, then it most certainly will come to pass:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"


"LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."


"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past."


"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"


"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."


"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;"


"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."


Please notice that in that last verse, in describing God as the "Father of lights", James uses the phrase "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning". In other words, just like the Sun, which is indeed the "father of lights", as well as the "greater light" mentioned in Genesis, which continuously pours its light upon the Earth, resulting in life on our planet, so too is our God. God is constant in His ways; and He, as well as His Word, can be trusted; just like the morning Sun which never fails to rise day after day and year after year.

In contrast, some moons and planets can go through different phases throughout the year so that the amount of light they reflect can vary. In fact, during a "new moon", our own Moon will appear to disappear completely. But this is not so with God the Father and His son, Jesus Christ, who will always be there for us, regardless of how much time has passed, and regardless of how many troubles may come our way. As it is also written:

". . . lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."


". . . for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."


On the other hand, as we have already discussed, the same cannot always be said concerning science; which has a propensity for wavering in it opinions and theories on a regular basis. This certainly holds true in the field of astronomy.

A clear case in point concerns the former outermost planet in our Solar System: Pluto. Since its discovery on February 18, 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, Pluto was classified as a planet. As I point out in "The Nibiru Planet X Wormwood Controversy" series, both Percival Lowell and Clyde Tombaugh were looking for the mysterious Planet X in the vicinity of Neptune, when Pluto's discovery was made. However, since the early 1990s, with the discovery of thousands of small icy objects in the outer region of our Solar System, in a disk-shaped cloud that astronomers refer to as the "Kuiper Disk", or "Kuiper Belt", Pluto's status as a major planet came into question, and it is now classified as a dwarf planet.

These cold objects, which astronomers refer to as Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) or Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs) -- being as they cross the orbit of the planet Neptune -- are irregular in shape. The vast majority of them are much smaller in size than Pluto itself. However, a few KBOs are as large as, and even larger than Pluto, such as the KBO, Eris. Other KBOs possess such exotic names as Albion, Haumea, Makemake, Orcus, Quaoar, Sedna, and Varuna. It is theorized that over 100,000 objects populate the Kuiper Belt, Furthermore, more of them are discovered with each passing year. Initially, the Kuiper Belt was thought to be the home of many periodic comets, or short-period comets. These are those comets which have an orbital period of two hundred years or less. However, it is now believed that these comets find their origin in an even more distant region of space known as the Scattered Disk.

For your information, Pluto is quite tiny in size, being six times smaller than our own planet Earth. Not only that, but this distant member of our Solar System is also smaller than seven of our Solar System's moons; those being our own Moon; as well as Jupiter's moons Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto; Saturn's moon Titan; and Neptune's moon Triton. Because of these facts, and others which I discuss in more detail in my series "The Nibiru Planet X Wormwood Controversy", in August of 2006, the International Astronomical Union announced a new definition for the word "planet". Being as it failed to meet the new criteria, Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet, and lost its status as the ninth member of our Solar System. It is now viewed as one of the larger members of the Kuiper Belt. Similarly-sized KBOs are thus referred to as Plutinos.

It is also interesting to note that until the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, images of Pluto and its small moon Charon were nothing more than blurry, irregular-shaped blobs of light. In fact, I possess one such image, being as it was included in a nine-piece set which I received as a gift from The Planetary Society some years ago, due to a contribution which I had made to that organization. It is only as a result of recent images taken by Hubble, that astronomers have been able to determine that Pluto does in fact possess a spherical shape similar to the eight planets in our Solar System.

However, even with the Hubble Space Telescope, the surface features of Pluto still remained totally indistinguishable, and appeared completely blurred. One of the factors which had set Pluto apart from the major bodies of our Solar System, is the fact that until 2015, it had never actually been visited by a manmade craft. That changed in July of 2015 when the New Horizons space probe flew by Pluto, and thus acquired the most detailed images to date. If you are reading this series on the Bill's Bible Basics website, below is an image which shows the Hubble Space Telescope image on the left, and the New Horizons image on the right. What a difference!



While this story concerning Pluto may not seem relevant to our current discussion on intelligent extraterrestrial life, other than the fact that it clearly demonstrates how modern science isn't always as perfect, or as constant in its views as one would like to think, there is one point that you need to remember as we proceed. That is the fact that the Pluto debate has revolved around visual observations of this dwarf planet by both men and machines.

Before proceeding to our next point of discussion, allow me to briefly address another issue. I realize that some of you who are reading this, who are more inclined to embrace the scientific perspective, may object to the fact that I have categorized science as being rather questionable in some of its positions. As I mentioned earlier, I recognize that this characteristic of science is the result of the very nature of the scientific approach to understanding things. That is to say, science demands that we first examine the evidence. It is then followed by speculation and experimentation, during which we offer various theories, and test those theories, in order to determine if they continue to be true. If not, then more examination is required, and additional experimentation is conducted, and the analytical process continues until the theories can either be substantiated by the results, or else discarded due to a lack of strong supporting evidence. At least they should be.

So, while I am not a scientist by profession, I do have a general understanding of how the scientific method operates. Nevertheless, as a Christian who has trusted in God for many years, and who is convinced of the immutable nature of His Word, I do not find this constant changing of opinion within the various scientific disciplines to be confidence-building.

This is particularly true when it results in such ludicrous conclusions as the theory of evolution, or Darwinism -- also referred to as macro-evolution -- which, quite frankly, is a religion in its own right, because it does require a kind of blind faith in order to accept it as being true, due to the lack of concrete supporting evidence. In spite of all of the intensive searching which has been conducted over the years, the fact remains that no so-called "missing link" has ever been discovered; because in my view, it does not exist. Now, if the "missing link" were to be found some day, I would be inclined to attribute it to the invention of unscrupulous men -- as has occurred in the past -- or at the very least, to the incorrect interpretation of whatever data may possibly be presented at that particular time.

If evolution is the best that science, and the so-called "wisdom" and "logic" of man, can offer us, then to be quite frank, I'll gladly accept God's Word any day. At least God's Word gives us humans credit for being intelligent creatures from the very beginning. Not so with science, which falsely promotes the belief that it took mankind thousands, if not millions of years, just to figure out that by planting seeds in the ground, he wouldn't have to keep migrating from place to place every so often, in order to find food to eat. The Bible makes it very plain that Cain, who was the eldest son of Adam and Eve, was a tiller of the ground. In other words, he grew crops, as we see hby these verses:

"And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD."


Sadly, as we all know, the utter nonsense of evolutionary theory is purposely shoved down the throats of very young, impressionable, school-aged children on a regular basis. Tragically, these kids really have no choice but to accept it, regardless of whether or not they believe in it. If a student dares to resist this misguided, false teaching, not only is it possible that he or she will become the object of ridicule -- due to the politically-correct environment which is pervasive in the U.S. public school system, which results in peer pressure from gullible classmates who may blindly accept the instructor's words as being true -- but it also makes it more difficult for any Bible-believing Christian student to pass exams, when he or she is forced to provide answers which go against his or her beliefs. Thus, from a Christian perspective, the practice of teaching the theory of evolution in the public school system is nothing short of forced indoctrination of false, baseless scientific dogma.

Returning to our main subject, concerning the existence of extrasolar planets -- which are also known as exoplanets -- the Wikipedia website notes the following regarding their discovery to date:

----- Begin Quote -----

As of 1 March 2023, there are 5,332 confirmed exoplanets in 3,931 planetary systems, with 855 systems having more than one planet.

----- End Quote -----

It is interesting to note that when I initially wrote this series in 2007, there were only several hundred exoplanets theorized to exist. Now, as you can see by the above quote, supposedly they number in the thousands as of March 2023.

In accordance with the astronomical nomenclature convention of the I.A.U. -- International Astronomical Union -- these alleged extrasolar planets are designated names which are usually a combination of their host star's name, to which a lower-case letter -- starting with the letter "b" -- is also assigned to the body, such as "Gliese 581 c", which happens to be the second "planet" of the red dwarf star, Gliese 581. This main-sequence star is located about twenty light years from the Earth. Gliese 581 c was discovered in April of 2007 and drew a lot of attention at that time, being as it was reported to be the first potentially Earth-like planet in the habitable zone -- or "goldilocks zone" -- of its parent star, on the space.com website. Gliese 581 c is referred to as a "super-Earth", being as it has been estimated to have a mass about 5.5 times that of our Earth.

At the time of its discovery, it was theorized that Gliese 581 c might possibly support liquid water. However, as more data became available, and after much debate, it was then determined that Gliese 581 c is tidally locked. This means that it always presents the same face to its parent star. Thus, if life ever did have a chance to emerge there, the best hope of survival would be found in what is referred to as the "terminator zone". Also known as the twilight zone, this is a moving line which divides the daylight side and the nighttime side of a planet, just as occurs on our own Earth.

In some cases, the host stars do not have regular alphabetic names. Instead, their names consist of a set of alphanumeric characters, such as "HD 202206". Thus, the second extrasolar planet of the star HD 202206, is known as HD 202206 c. It is located in the constellation of Capricornus. This host star is located one hundred and fifty light-years from our Earth. This "planet" is believed to be a gas giant which possesses a mass almost two and a half times that of Jupiter; and like other alleged extrasolar planets, astronomers believe that it is much too massive to support any form of life as we understand it. For one thing, it would be crushed by such tremendous gravitational force, even if other conditions were conducive to supporting life.

From the data I have looked at on the Internet, it appears that the mass of these alleged "planets" ranges from about one tenth that of the planet Jupiter, to about seventeen times that of Jupiter. The majority of these "planets" are said to be gaseous orbs, as big as, or larger than, Jupiter, with only a small handful being smaller than Saturn. Many of them are also located extremely close to their host star; in some cases only a few AU away from it, which makes them very hot, and unable to support any form of life. An Astronomical Unit, or AU, is equal to approximately ninety-three million miles, or the distance from the Sun to the Earth.

The biggest problem for me regarding these alleged "planets", is that due to the great distances involved, and our limited technology, except for one highly-debated case, there's been no verified visual observation of any of them as of yet. In other words, you cannot go outside, point your telescope up into the night sky, and say "Look; there's Gliese 581 c; and over there is HD 202206 c". Trust me; it's simply not going to happen, and never will happen, with any equipment that astronomy buffs may currently own. You won't see any of them, and you certainly won't be able to take any pictures of them to show to your friends. The fact of the matter is that the alleged discovery of these "extrasolar planets" requires the use of very specialized astronomical instruments, such as an imaging device referred to as a spectroscope. In short, the existence of these "planets" is based entirely on secondary evidence such as light fluctuation, gravitational distortion, stellar wobble, etc.

For those of you reading this series, who may not understand how these alleged "extrasolar planets" are discovered, allow me to offer you an explanation. Based upon my research, over the years, six different methods have been utilized to try to detect "extrasolar planets". These methods are, according to the Wikipedia website, as follows:

----- Begin Quote -----

* Astrometry: Astrometry consists of precisely measuring a star's position in the sky and observing the ways in which that position changes over time. If the star has a planet, then the gravitational influence of the planet will cause the star itself to move in a tiny circular or elliptical orbit about their common center of mass.

* Radial velocity: This is also known as the Doppler method. Variations in the speed with which the star moves towards or away from Earth; that is, variations in the radial velocity of the star with respect to Earth; can be deduced from the displacement in the parent star's spectral lines due to the Doppler effect. This has been by far the most productive technique used by planet hunters.

* Pulsar timing: A pulsar (the small, ultradense remnant of a star that has exploded as a supernova) emits radio waves extremely regularly as it rotates. Slight anomalies in the timing of its observed radio pulses can be used to track changes in the pulsar's motion caused by the presence of planets.

* Transit method: If a planet crosses (or transits) in front of its parent star's disk, then the observed visual brightness of the star drops by a small amount. The amount by which the star dims depends on its size and on the size of the planet.

* Gravitational microlensing: Microlensing occurs when the gravitational field of a star acts like a lens, magnifying the light of a distant background star. If the foreground lensing star has a planet, then that planet's own gravitational field can make a detectable contribution to the lensing effect.

* Circumstellar disks: Disks of space dust surround many stars, and this dust can be detected because it absorbs ordinary starlight and re-emits it as infrared radiation. Features in dust disks sometimes suggest the presence of full-sized planets.

----- End Quote -----

As mentioned in the previous excerpts, the most productive technique which has been employed by astronomers to discover extrasolar planets, is "radial-velocity survey". By using a device called a spectrograph, or spectroscope, astronomers are able to capture images of a star's light spectrum. That is to say, they can take pictures of the lightwaves emitted by a star. By closely examining these photographic plates, they are able to observe variations in the fluctuations, or spectrum, of the star.

According to this theory, these perturbations result from the gravitational effect caused by an unseen body which must be orbiting the host star. By measuring the degree of these variations, astronomers claim that they are able to not only calculate the orbit of the theorized body, but also determine said body's minimal mass as well. These mysterious bodies are now known as "extrasolar planets". That is to say, planetary bodies which are located outside of our own Solar System.

As I just explained to you, some astronomers are absolutely convinced that these spectral variations must result from the existence of a large unseen planet -- in many cases, the size of Saturn, Jupiter, or larger -- which causes these effects to occur, as the planet orbits around its host star. However, my view is that this kind of evidence should not be regarded as being conclusive. In fact, during the course of conducting research for this particular series, I discovered that some extrasolar planets were said to have been discovered by very professional-minded people, only to be challenged later by other astronomers. That is, by their own peers.

When all was said and done, some of these alleged extrasolar planet discoveries were retracted by their authors. So as I stated earlier, modern science does possess this flexibility factor. However, it can serve as both a weakness, and also as a strength. Premature scientific announcements can sometimes, and easily, lead to confusion and embarrassment later on.

Of course, none of us know the future. With the advances that are constantly being made in astronomy, astrophotography and similar disciplines, it could very well turn out that these astronomers are right. However, until we actually possess at least a few visual confirmations -- that is to say, some real physical sightings, and not merely sightings, but real bona fide photographs -- I advise my readers to approach the issue regarding extrasolar planets with a great deal of caution and healthy skepticism. Personally, given my scientific curiosity and limited knowledge, while I am cautious, nevertheless, I still lean towards the belief that other planetary systems do exist in the Universe. I will be delving more into this issue later on in this same series.

On the other hand, what if it eventually turns out that all of these astronomers are wrong? Do you realize that this controversy has the potential for turning into one of the biggest hoaxes the world has ever known? There are already over 5,300 alleged "extrasolar planets", which entirely owe their existence to these theories and questionable methods of detection. How many more "planets" will there be even a few years from now?

As you will already know, some people ridicule us Christians because we dare to believe by blind faith alone. They think that we are crazy for believing in Someone whom we have never really seen. However, according to God's Word, that is what we are supposed to do. In fact, that is what God expects and demands of us. As Jesus Himself said to Thomas when Thomas doubted the Lord's Resurrection from the dead:

". . . blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."


As the Apostle Paul wrote in his famous chapter concerning the heroes of faith, which is found in his Epistle to the Hebrews, God is in fact displeased with us when we fail to demonstrate our faith in Him, as we see by these verses:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen . . . But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."


Yet, at the same time, similar to the evolutionists, are not these astronomers doing the very same thing when they expect us to believe in their "planetary discoveries", even though they have not provided us with any solid, physical and visual proof? As I said a moment ago, all they've given us is their secondary evidence. I for one can't help but question why it is that secondary evidence is sufficient to convince them of the existence of these extrasolar planets, while at the same time, some of them refuse to believe in God, or accept that Jesus Christ is His Son, and most importantly, the Savior of the world. After all, there's plenty of secondary evidence, as well as eyewitness accounts, of Jesus' existence about two thousand years ago. All a person has to do is read their Bible in order to discover it.

If you happen to be an atheist, and if God's Word contained in the pages of the Bible is not sufficient evidence for you, then as I already pointed out in part one, there is also the preponderance of evidence found in the physical creation. If the physical world all around you is not sufficient proof to convince you that God is real, then I can only conclude that something is seriously wrong with you. You are spiritually blind and ignorant by your own stubborn choice.

I honestly cannot understand how anyone, be they scientist, atheist or astronomer, can look up at the night sky, and see all of the amazing beauty it contains, and still not realize that there is a Divine Designer and a Creator behind it all. God's imprint is literally everywhere, and creation cries out for you to believe. Yet some of you stubbornly and foolishly refuse. It leaves me totally dumbfounded; and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if God feels the same exact way. Some of you atheists claim that you find us Christians offensive. Well, I am going to tell you something. I have no doubt that God finds your stubbornness and unbelief equally offensive. Think about that!

These atheists ask, "Where is the body of proof to convince me that God is real, and that Jesus Christ is His resurrected Son?". Well, allow me to ask you something in return. Where is the real physical body to convince us that your extrasolar planets exist? Show us some real, visual, physical evidence. If some of you atheists feel that you have the right to hold God, and us Christians, to such a demanding standard, before you will believe, then we likewise have the right to demand convincing evidence from you as well, before we will embrace your theories, speculations and questionable methods.

As I pointed out earlier, in the case of evolution, it is a lost cause for you from the start, because the missing link simply does not exist. Furthermore, evolution, or Darwinism if you prefer, is totally contrary to the Creation Account which is found in the Book of Genesis. Now, in the case of extrasolar planets, as I have already explained, it remains an open question; at least for me personally. It won't shock me to learn that they really do exist. In fact, I anticipate it. However, if you, as a scientist, really want to convince us that said bodies exist, then simply give us the physical, visual evidence that we desire.

The point is, you cannot very well hold Christians to a strict standard when demanding proof of us, while you refuse to apply that same rigid standard to yourselves as well. Otherwise, you are practicing a hypocritical double standard. Let me likewise point out that God is under no obligation to provide any more evidence than that which He has already provided. As Jesus Himself taught in a Parable concerning those Jews who did not believe in Him:

". . . If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."


What a sad example which clearly demonstrates how spiritually callous and hard-hearted some people can become. Those words remind me of something else which Jesus said on one occasion while briefly discussing what the spiritual condition of the world would be like just prior to His Return. The Lord said:

". . . Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"


Surely, Jesus' words have clearly come to pass in our modern day where skepticism and doubt are the rule, rather than the exception. The truth of the matter, is that it does require faith to believe as we Christians believe. We do not deny this. But what must also be recognized, is that it likewise requires faith to believe in what the astronomers tell us as well; because as of this date -- March 2023 -- they simply do not possess any real, solid, observable, physical, visual proof -- at least not yet -- to convince us of the existence of extrasolar planets. All they actually have are theories, speculations, secondary evidence, questionable methods, and a few, in my view, unconvincing images.

Let me conclude part two of this series by reiterating that I do want to believe that exoplanets exist. It seems like a very logical conclusion to me. However, I do need more convincing evidence than what is currently available. When such proof is provided, I will be just as thrilled by it as everyone else; believe me. As we continue this series in part three, I will be providing some of the currently available evidence so that you can decide for yourself how convincing, or unconvincing, it is.

Please go to part three for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.