Evolving 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):

The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons (d):

a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases�hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the giant planets.

b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, several times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates (e). (Jupiter�s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)

c. Stars like our Sun�even those which evolutionists say are young�do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter (f).

Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations (g). The planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve. [See �Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?� on page 418.]

Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve:

d . �Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.� George W. Wetherill, �How Special Is Jupiter?� Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.

�Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn�the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system�s planetary mass�and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.� Richard A. Kerr, �A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns,� Science, Vol. 298, 29 November 2002, p. 1698.

e. This idea has a further difficulty. If, as the solar system began to form, a large, rocky planet quickly formed near Jupiter�s orbit, why didn�t a rocky planet form in the adjacent asteroid belt where we see more than 200,000 rocky bodies (asteroids) today?

f . B. Zuckerman et al., �Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion around Young Stars,� Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, pp. 494�496.

g . �In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, [what evolutionists believe is] the lifetime of the solar system. �Things just grow too slowly� in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. �We�ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.�� Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, �Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,� Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054.

Renu Malhotra, �Chaotic Planet Formation,� Nature, Vol. 402, 9 December 1999, pp. 599�600.