Genesis and Genesis

Genesis the space probe confirms Genesis the verbal account

The composition of our solar system shows that it was pieced together rather than being the random evolution of a nebulous molecular cloud.

Space retrieval programme Genesis (Wikipedia):

The team announced on March 10, 2008, that analysis of a silicon wafer from Genesis showed that the Sun has a higher proportion of oxygen-16 relative to the Earth, Moon, Mars, and bulk meteorites. This implies that an unknown process depleted oxygen-16 from the Sun’s disk of protoplanetary material prior to the coalescence of dust grains that formed the inner planets and the asteroid belt. …. Target material showed that implanted solar wind nitrogen has a 15N/14N ratio of 2.18×10−3, that is, ≈40% poorer in 15N relative to the terrestrial atmosphere. The 15N/14N ratio of the protosolar nebula was 2.27×10−3, which is the lowest 15N/14N ratio known for Solar System objects. This result demonstrates the extreme nitrogen isotopic heterogeneity of the nascent Solar System and accounts for the 15N-depleted components observed in Solar System reservoirs.

Chemical variability had already been discovered by the Galileo probe.

Britannica – on-line – Composition of Jupiter:

“The elemental abundances in Jupiter’s atmosphere can be compared with the composition of the Sun (see the right two columns of the table). If, like the Sun, the planet had formed by simple condensation from the primordial solar nebula that is thought to have given birth to the solar system, their elemental abundances should be the same. A surprising result from the Galileo probe was that all the globally mixed elements that it could measure in the Jovian atmosphere showed the same approximately threefold enrichment of their values in the Sun, relative to hydrogen.”

There is a twist to all this.

Ninety-nine percent by mass of the system is at an angle to the other one percent.

Taylor, p. 171.

“Curiously enough, the plane in which the planets lie is tilted at 7 degrees to the equator of the sun. This is rarely discussed. Perhaps some late torque twisted the gaseous nebula …… .”

Professor Taylor was a principal investigator for Apollo, author of 220 technical papers, 6 books, associate of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, member of the Board of Advisors, Planetary Society, etc.etc.. He documents more than one twist in the history of the system in which we live, but first we go back and begin, in the morning, with the morning stars.

Taylor, p.32:

“Single stars are not very common, and are perhaps even rare, compared with double star systems. These pairs form most of the stars that we see. Even triple stars are common and over three quarters of all stars live in double or triple associations. Although it is often supposed that the sun and Jupiter represent a failed double star system, this idea neglects the fundamental difference between the processes responsible for making planets, as opposed to stars …….. . Jupiter is not a failed star that formed by condensation from a gas cloud. It is a true planet … built up bit by bit. ….. Planets .. form around double stars …. at least one .. example is known.”

Note, stars condense, at a given mass ignite, then begin to blow the uncondensed molecules away. Planets accrete molecule by molecule. They are ‘gathered together’ (bible).

Solo stars are not very common, perhaps even rare. There were morning stars (refer bible) at Earth’s nursery. Not to be confused with the morning star. Logical place to look for these morning stars? Close by. Alpa/Beta/Proxima Centauri, a few light years away. At a distance, it appears as one star. Spectroscopy allows the possibility of one of these being a twin to our sun. At least one planet is attendant to this system. How did this system become disattached and separated? If a single, rapidly rotating molecular cloud can lay a centralized star such as our Sun which is barely rotating and is tilted to the plane of the mother disc at 7.25 degrees – if that near impossibility can be countenanced, it is child’s play to disentangle a few stars and a planet or two and set them in motion, so that in a few thousand million years they arrive at a new location.

The perplexity which is the outcome of building the solar system with the 300 year old idea of a single cloud of molecules is clearly documented by Taylor, p. 43-4:

“For how long did the solar nebula last? Clearly, one has to form the Sun and gas-rich planets while the gas was around. The time from the initial separation of the disk of gas and dust from the molecular cloud out in the galaxy to the point where the Sun is large enough to ignite the nuclear furnace is somewhere between a hundred thousand and one million years. Once the Sun begins to shine, the gas left over in the nebula is soon driven away. Although we see that dusty disks (of ice and rock) persist for periods of a few million years around violently behaving young stars such as T Tauri, the gas itself may have been lost over a much shorter lifetime, perhaps as brief as one million years. The time between the formation of the solar nebula as a rotating disk of dust and gas and the disappearance of the gas is very short. Thus, the gas giants, Jupiter and Saturn, have to form rather quickly, before the gas has been driven away. As will become apparent, some fine timing is needed to form Jupiter at all. ……. . … we have samples from the region between Jupiter and Mars. These are the meteorites that come from the asteroid belt. They date back to the beginning of the solar system and have a special significance since they tell us about temperatures at that remote epoch. Out at about three times the distance from Sun to Earth, it was hot enough to melt ice. The meteorites that were a little closer to the Sun have been in a hotter zone. They have lost not only water, but varying amounts of elements like lead, potassium and other easily vaporized elements. So clearly the nebula was getting hotter nearer the Sun. Just how hot is a question. Primitive meteorites are complex mixtures of minerals formed at low and high temperatures. About half of our stony meteorite samples consist of tiny glassy spheres, typically about a millimetre in size. These are the famous ‘chondrules’ discovered over a century ago by Henry C. Sorby (1826- 1908). He was a gentleman scientist in the Victorian tradition, who invented the powerful technique of examining thin transparent slices of rock under a microscope. When he turned his attention to meteorites, he recognised that the chondrules had been ‘molten drops in a fiery rain’ that had cooled to glass. ….. The chondrule factory must have been efficient, for at least half of the material in meteorites seems to have passed through it. It is clear that chondrules had been dust balls that were flash melted.”

Forming Jupiter (and Saturn) while there remained sufficient gas – let alone give them time to collect it – was no mean feat. The inner planets such as Earth and Mars must somehow have survived, yet chunks of rock currently farther from the Sun partly consist of once-molten droplets.

Taylor, p.18.

“The regular spacing of the planets [Titius-Bode rule] has always attracted wide interest. …… It works well enough out to Uranus, but breaks down at Neptune …. It is curious that there is no correlation with mass or composition, either with the spacing given by the rule, or with distance from the Sun. ….. from the fragmentary evidence available from the newly discovered ‘planetary’ systems around other stars, the ‘rule’ does not appear to operate in those locations either. ….. .”

P. 213:

“All this time, it was telling us that chance events were common.”

By chance events, he means, the outcome of what is known as ‘chaos’ mathematics. Chaos can be solved by a full blown quantum computer. Figuratively, light years in advance of anything yet designed by Man. The solar system is no accident.

Taylor, p. 211:

“Nothing resembling our solar system has been discovered.”


“….. the possibility that a copy might exist of our solar system, or the Earth .. is .. unlikely.”

“Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the solar system began about 350 years ago, but have not yet been …. successful….. .” Brush, S.G., p.91.

We could try putting it together in gyroscopically stable units with an ignited star not initially in the same relative location as at present. A late-completed composite. The Earth could well be older than some of the other components. Earth, day 3; completed System, day 4. Follow the one Genesis agenda, and the other Genesis outcome, like the System itself, will mesh. Without a twist.


  • Brush, S.G., 1996 A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Taylor, S.R., 1998 Destiny or Chance: Our Solar System and its Place in the Cosmos, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.