Strange Planets 2 -- Science Disproves Evolution

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus (c), and Pluto rotate backwards (d).

Backward Orbits. � Each of the almost 200 known moons in the solar system should orbit its planet in the same direction, but more than 30 have backward orbits (e). Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

Moons. The orbit of each of these moons should lie very near the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the Earth�s moon, are in highly inclined orbits (f).

Planets. The orbital planes of the planets should lie in the equatorial plane of the Sun. Instead, the orbital planes of the planets typically deviate from the Sun�s equatorial plane by 7 degrees, a significant amount.

Angular Momentum. � The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun (g).

Each planet is unique. Similarities that would be expected if the planets had evolved from the same swirling dust cloud are seldom found. Yet, most planetary studies begin by assuming the planets evolved and are therefore similar. Typical arguments are as follows: �By studying the magnetic field (or any other feature) of Planet X, we will better understand how Earth�s magnetic field evolved.� Actually, each magnetic field is surprisingly different. �By studying Earth�s sister planet, Venus, we will see how plate tectonics shaped its surface and better understand how plate tectonics works on Earth.� It is now recognized that plate tectonics does not occur on Venus.� (Part II of this book will show that the plate tectonic theory is incorrect.)

c. Uranus� spin axis is �tilted� 97.77�. In other words, Uranus spins on its side and slightly backwards. Evolutionists have incorrectly speculated that Uranus must have been tipped over by a giant impact. However, such an impact would not have changed the orbital planes of Uranus� larger moons, which are also �tipped over.�

d. The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2003 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003), p.�F2.

The Moon�s orbital plane is inclined 18.5� � 28.5� to the Earth�s equatorial plane. (The Moon�s orbital plane precesses between those values over an 18.6-year cycle.) This is a considerable inclination when one recognizes that the Moon possesses 82.9% of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. No other planet-satellite system comes close to this amount.

Theories that for centuries claimed to show how the Moon evolved can now be rejected because of this fact alone. A more recent theory claims that a Mars-size body collided with the early Earth and kicked up debris that formed the Moon.� Ward and Canup acknowledge that:

�Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near [less than 1�], the Earth�s equatorial plane.� William R. Ward and Robin M. Canup, �Origin of the Moon�s Orbital Inclination from Resonant Disk Interactions,� Nature, Vol.�403, 17 February 2000, p.�741.

Fred Hoyle, The Cosmology of the Solar System (Hillside, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1979), pp.�11�12.

�One of the detailed problems is then to explain how the Sun itself acquires nearly 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum.� Frank D. Stacey, Physics of the Earth (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), p.�4.

Some have proposed transferring angular momentum from the sun to the planets by �magnetic linking.� McCrea states:

�However, I scarcely think it has yet been established that the postulated processes would inevitably occur, or that if they did they would operate with the extreme efficiency needed in order to achieve the required distribution of angular momentum.� William Hunter McCrea, �Origin of the Solar System,� Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), p.�8.

h. All those astronomers and planetary scientists said,
We, as planetary scientists and astronomers, do not agree with the IAU�s definition of a planet, nor will we use it.

Jenny Hogan, �Pluto: The Backlash Begins,� Nature, Vol.�442, 31 August 2006, pp.�965.

A trans-Neptunian object (TNO) is any minor planet orbiting the Sun at a greater average distance than Neptune.

Contributing to the IAU�s decision to remove Pluto�s status as a planet was its small size (two-thirds the diameter of our moon) and the discovery, beginning in 1992, of thousands of trans-Neptunian objects, at least two of which are larger than Pluto. All are much farther from the Sun than Pluto.

The stated reason for the IAU�s decision to remove Pluto�s status as a planet was its small size (two-thirds the diameter of our moon) and the discovery, beginning in 1992, of thousands of trans-Neptunian objects, at least two of which are larger than Pluto but much farther from the Sun than Pluto. The unstated reason for the IAU�s decision was that Pluto, since its discovery in 1930, contradicted evolutionary theories for how planets evolve. Pluto was a thorn in the evolutionists� side.

A simple fix for the IAU would have been to consider Pluto as both a trans-Neptunian objects and (for historical reasons) a planet. Also, an honest acknowledgement that all planets are unique would have clarified matters. Hundreds of planets discovered outside the solar system are completely different from those inside the solar system. Evolutionary processes do not explain them. [See "Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?"

For more information on the battles among astronomers concerning Pluto�s planetary status, see Laurence A. Marschall and Stephen P. Maran, Pluto Confidential (Dallas, Texas: Benbella Books, Inc., 2009). Thousands of professional astronomers will not abide by the IAU�s stealthy vote and will continue to consider Pluto a planet.