The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Planet formation

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Police.png
Cleanup Required
This article does not meet the CreationWiki standards of quality. You are encouraged to improve this work by making revisions. Requires extensive edits and/or deletion.
The new solar system.jpg

Planet formation theories differ based on the two primary worldviews. One is with the biblical perspective and the other is methodological empiricism. Biblical perspective is based on the Bible scriptures that say God is the only Creator of the universe. However, scientific perspective is different from the biblical perspective in that the formation theory must contain only non-supernatural processes. Evidences for biblical perspective are the Holy Bible, but evidences for scientific perspective are computer simulations and assumptions. However, problems exist in both perspectives. Evolutionists and nonbelievers do not believe that God created the universe and they do not think there is enough evidence to support the biblical perspective. Then, creationists and believers do not believe that planets are created from the residue of the Big Bang because, if they were so created, then they should have more common properties (spin axes, composition, orbital eccentricity, etc.), but they do not. [1] [2]

Observation

Biblical perspective

Creation of Adam in the Cappella Sistina.

The biblical perspective is totally different from the evolutionary perspective. According to the Bible, planets are created by the Lord, the only Creator of the universe. For instance, according to Genesis 2:1-2 , "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." To evolutionists or people who believe evolutionism, Genesis 2:1-2 means nothing, because there is no evidence or any simulation that evolutionary models have. However, to creationists or people who believe creationism, the Bible is fact and the truth, also they believe the Bible as a history book of the universe full of evidence. Other than Genesis 2:1-2, many Bible verses describe God as the only one who created the planets. For instance, Colossians 1:15-17, Deuteronomy 10:14, Psalm 24:1-2 and many other verses. Colossians 1:15-17 : "Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Deuteronomy 10:14 : "Heaven and the heaven of heavens belong to the LORD your God, the earth with all that is in it." Psalm 24 : "The earth is the LORD's and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it; for God has founded it on the seas, and established it on the rivers." All these Bible descriptions describe direct planet formation by God. [3] [1]

Evolutionary perspective

Black Hole is the example of the accretion.

In these days, many beliefs and models about the planet formation are asserted by many scientists. For example, Alan Boss, a famous astrophysicist, stated that the planet formed by joining two things together; dust and gas. Alan claims that the planet is formed within thousands of years, not the millions of years that people believed before. Alan's assertion could be substantiated by several evidences that most astrophysicists believe. First, one hypothesis is based on accretion that prove Alan's assertion. Accretion means that something increased in size or weight by unaffected growth or extrinsic addition. According to many astrophysicists, accretion is the most reasonable evidence that can support the planet formation, because as it is, the gas and dust unite into one to shape the center of the planet. However, every models and beliefs that scientists are stating on the subject theoretical and those models are made by computer simulations, not by observations through space telescope. Therefore, people should not always believe what the scientists are saying about the planet formation. A second model proposes that planets form by gravity. All the stars in the universe have gravity and some of those stars have stronger gravity than other stars. Then, those stars with stronger gravity pull other stars and the result of the process is a group of stars that theoretically forms a planet. [1]

Evidences

The Book fo Genesis is an example of how the God created the universe in six days.
Big Bang theory is an example of how planet formed held by evolutionists and nonbelievers.

The Bible is made of God's words, actions and stories; therefore, it is the fact and the truth. Genesis is the most accurate evidence that describes the planet formation. [2] According to the book of Genesis, there are few steps that describe how God created the planet. First, God created the heavens and the earth. Second, God created the light that could make people recognize the day and the night. Third, God created the expanse to divide the land from water. Fourth, God made the land fertile to produce plants, trees and flowers that are essential to sustain life. Fifth, God created living creatures, birds, wild animals and livestocks. Sixth, God created man and woman, also known as Adam and Eve. These are the steps that listed in the Bible. [3] However, evolutionists and nonvelievers believe scientist's models and theories, not the Holy Bible. According to Boss's theory and the Big Bang theory, planet formed after the Big Bang as pieces of the stars combined into one by the gravity. Those two theories can be the truth, because they made those theories and models are based on proofs. [1] However, opposition always exists and both creationism and evolutionism, in planet formation, have oppositions. Evolutionists and nonbelievers would say that there is no existence of God and science is the only way to describe planet formation, because science is based on evidence and demonstration, but creation is not. Also, evolutionists are trying to approve the planet formation through computer simulations and suppositions. However, creationists and believers make oppositions towards evolutionist's models. [2]

Problems

Outer planets, gas giant planets, are Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
Inner planets, terrestrial planets, are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.

According to the Big Bang theory and Alan Boss's model, all planets in the universe have to be in exactly the same formation. For instance, they have to rotate in the same orbit and direction, have to be in the same conditions and have to be in the same size. However, the reality is totally opposite. There are two different kinds of planets. One is outer planets and the other is inner planets. If they were made out of the same explosion, the Big Bang, then why are they different in everything? None of the scientists and evolutionists have answered on this question. Outer planets are gas giant planets, also known as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Gas giant planets are simply positioned in the exterior of the orbit that has sun in the center. They are made up of hydrogen and helium, which are different from compositions of inner planets like Earth or Mars. Inner planets or terrestrial planets, are made up of carbon, hydrogen and water. Not only are the compositions different, but the sizes are also different. Terrestrial planets are extremely smaller than gas giant planets. The combine size of the terrestrial planets is smaller than the size of Jupiter. In addition to this, if the Big Bang theory is true, then every planets should have oxygen and water in the atmosphere and on the surface. However, Earth is the only planet that has both oxygen and water, which are essential to sustain human life.[4]

In addition, the inner planets are more closely packed and more compacted than outer planets. However, outer planets are thicker and heavier than inner planets, additionally outer planets gain smaller amount of light and heat than that of inner planets. There are more dissimilarities between inner planets and outer planets. All of inner planets were discovered during the 10th century, but most of outer planets were explored, in recently, after the astronomical telescope was invented and developed. Also, inner planets revolve and rotate slower than outer planets, however inner planets finish the track around the sun more rapidly than outer planets. In addition, all of the inner planets does not have rings that all of the outer planets have. Moreover, inner planets have only two moons, one with the Earth and the other with the Mars, while, there are hundreds of moons revolving around the outer planets. As the information shows, if the planet was formed by the Big Bang, the consequences should be all the same, which means all planets would be in the same condition and same shape. However, the conditions and shapes of planets are totally different; this shows why the Big Bang theory is incorrect about how planets formed. [5]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_3/j17_3_19-21.pdf
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 http://scienceray.com/philosophy-of-science/the-biblical-and-scientific-views-on-how-planet-earth-was-formed/
  3. 3.0 3.1 http://www.biblegateway.com/
  4. http://www.reasons.org/rtbs-creation-model/cosmic-design/planet-formation-problems-too-much-water-too-much-carbon-and-too-much-air
  5. http://www.solarspace.co.uk/Planets.php

External Links