Posted on 02/05/2009 11:30:17 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Solar System Secrets Solved
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
A recent issue of New Scientist contained a series of articles that explored “The Six Biggest Mysteries of Our Solar System.” One article posed the question, “How was the solar system built?”1 “Built” is a good word, considering the solar system contains an array of features that appear precisely orchestrated.
For example, if all the planets, as well as the sun, came from the same dust cloud—as the Nebular Hypothesis claims—then why does each planet have an entirely unique composition? Why do the planets’ collective orbital velocities, trajectories, and distances combine to precisely balance the earth within a “habitable zone,” where just the right exposure to the sun’s rays ensures the presence of liquid water, which is vital for life?2
And why does the solar system contain features that point to a relatively recent origin? For example, why does Saturn have decaying rings instead of a disk?3 Why is Mercury so unexpectedly dense, and why does it have a magnetic field when it is so small?4
Regardless, the writers assert in New Scientist that the “delicate architecture” of the solar system came from a collapsed “molecular cloud.”1 A related hypothesis offered local patches of turbulence that enabled boulders to coalesce into planets without falling into the sun.5 But this ad hoc speculation does not explain why the boulders, which must be at least one kilometer in diameter to have enough gravity to attract one another, did not just grind themselves to dust in the effort.6
Another explanation reviewed in New Scientist was one astronomer’s elaborate scheme of fortuitous gravitational events whereby several massive planets threw Uranus and Neptune into their oblong orbits, and then created the never-before-seen Oort cloud. Astronomers proposed that such a cloud “must exist” to explain the presence of young comets in the supposedly “ancient” solar system.7 One technical model of the Oort cloud predicts that ~100 times more comets should be produced, but this discrepancy is arbitrarily dismissed by asserting that “the majority of them must physically disrupt” and are therefore destroyed.8
These various conjectures are tantamount to “explaining” that a student’s model of the solar system could be formed by random rushes of wind acting on piles of dirt. Each mystery cited by New Scientist is only mysterious in terms of a philosophically naturalistic worldview, but it makes perfect sense in light of the Bible
When a Creator is considered as the originating Source—a possibility that a host of features of the solar system clearly demands—then these mysteries aren’t so mysterious anymore. Genesis 1:16 states that “He made the stars.” How? Psalm 33:9 answers, “He commanded, and it was done.”
References
1. Webb, R. Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? New Scientist. 2693. Posted on newscientist.com January 29, 2009, accessed January 30, 2009.
2. Coppedge, D. F. 2006. Astrobiology: Follow the…. Acts & Facts. 35 (7).
3. Coppedge, D. F. 2008. Rescuing Ring Ages. Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 15.
4. Coppedge, D. F. 2008. Messenger from Mercury. Acts & Facts. 37 (5): 15.
5. Cuzzi, J. N., R. C. Hogan and K. Shariff. 2008. Toward Planetesimals: Dense Chondrule Clumps in the Protoplanetary Nebula. The Astrophysical Journal. 687 (2): 1432-1447.
6. Coppedge, D. F. 2008. Nebulous Hypothesis. Acts & Facts. 37 (2): 15.
7. Humphreys, R. D. 2005. Evidence for a Young World. Acts & Facts. 34 (6).
8. Levison, H. F. et al. 2002. The Mass Disruption of Oort Cloud Comets. Science. 296 (5576): 2212-2215.
Einstein had a different approach. Because nature had such a beautiful rationality to it, he believed there was an intelligence behind nature.
One may not like Einstein's particular concept of God, but this approach of seeing God in an “explained” nature I think is a better approach.
How do the Creationists explain God creating all the trillions and trillions of stars and planetary systems that aren't habitable?
It's an example of flawed thinking to point to some outcome after the fact and feign amazement that precisely this outcome occurred and not a different one.
If we had been presented with some other outcome, the creationists of that parallel universe would undoubtedly find it "miraculous" that our atmosphere contained just the "right" concentrations of ammonia and methane to support our silicon-based life.
For example, if all the planets, as well as the sun, came from the same dust cloud—as the Nebular Hypothesis claims—then why does each planet have an entirely unique composition?
If my six siblings and I all came from the same two parents, then why are we so dissimilar? Or, speaking more generally, why do we find such extremes of temperature on our one planet?
Why do the planets’ collective orbital velocities, trajectories, and distances combine to precisely balance the earth within a “habitable zone,” where just the right exposure to the sun’s rays ensures the presence of liquid water, which is vital for life?
This borders on being intentionally misleading! The orbital velocities, trajectories, and distances of the various eight planets do not "combine" to exert any effect upon Earth. Thus, removing, e.g., Mercury or Venus from the Solar System would not somehow "destabilize" the Earth's orbit. Further, the parameters of orbital velocity and distance are not independent variables. Rather, they are dependent upon each other. To imply otherwise would be tantamount to pointing out, e.g., that the most voluminous planets are, miraculously, also the most massive.
And why does the solar system contain features that point to a relatively recent origin? For example, why does Saturn have decaying rings instead of a disk?
Maybe because the Solar System is not static, but rather - in essence - being continually created, like, e.g., the Grand Canyon?
Why is Mercury so unexpectedly dense[?]
Who ever announced that it should be less dense?
[?]and why does it have a (very, very weak) magnetic field when it is so small?
So having a magnetic field although it is small points to a Divine Creator? Mercury formed in a much hotter region of the Solar System, where all of its volatiles were "blown away."
I have great difficulty believing that the author of this drivel is sincere. His arguments are based upon fallacies and misdirection.
If I were a creationist, I would be very embarassed by this article.
Regards,
It’s no surprise that a magazine would hype and exaggerate in its headlines. I’m used to seeing headlines that loudly proclaim something that I know is impossible, and then reading the article and seeing that the article doesn’t have anything to do with the headline.
This one just goes a bit farther than most.
The secrets and mysteries of the Solar System have not been solved.
Agreed. How can such a complex concept be solved by such a simple equation E=MC Squared? Why not an E=M*1.239876543 divided by the average speed of a swallow?
I kinda like Humphreys’ explanation of how the universe formed, not because I accept any part of it, but because it does show imagination, a quality sorely lacking anymore.
“A Review of Dr. Russ Humphreys’ A Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology
by David J. Tyler
Humphreys considered the word ‘deep’ (tehom) in the Bible (Genesis chapter 1 verse 2) and suggested that it should be understood as ordinary liquid water. The cosmological model that was developed from this framework considers all the galaxies in the universe to have been formed from the waters of this ‘deep’. Based on an estimated mass of the universe of 3 times 10 to the power 51 kilograms, Humphreys calculates that the ‘deep’ would be a sphere of water with a radius of at least 1 light year. Since the expanse is formed in ‘the midst of the waters’ (Genesis chapter 1 verse 6), it follows that the Earth must be at or near the centre of the universe.
Humphreys suggests that the Bible teaches a cosmological geocentricity.”
“A sphere of water with a radius of at least 1 light year”.
And here these posters are worrying about planets! Mere planets.
I think it’s one of the coolest ideas I have ever heard in cosmology. And it’s all based on a YEC biblical interpretation of scripture. It certainly gives the Lord moving over the face of the formless deep a whole new twist, and then there’s the idea that “let their be light” was the initiation of nuclear fusion of the one light year wide ball of water collapsing upon itself, not to mention the part about God separating the waters from the waters. And let’s not forget, Humphreys cosmology predicts that the waters above the separation now encircle the entire universe. Very, very cool! I’m not saying he’s 100% correct, I’m just sayin’...
African or European?
Cool is not quite the word, say,...wet? All wet?
And then to think that God may have used the gravity well our galaxy may be sitting in to dilate time so that distant starlight would reach the earth (somewhere very near the center of the Universe) in time for Adam and Eve to behold the stars declaring the glory of God...gives me goosebumps every time I think about it!
Don’t be greedy. I gave you imaginative, living at the bottom of a well may be cool enough to give you goosebumps but first you have to have get there and not drown in Humphreys water doing it.
How’s that for working metaphors into analogy and theory? You like that? Huh?
Thank goodness nuclear fusion can produce the elements necessary for dry land!
Thanks for the ping!
>>>“And why does the solar system contain features that point to a relatively recent origin?”
>>>Such as?
Maybe Jupiter and Venus still have the pricetags.
“Bush’s fault?”
LOL.
“but this approach of seeing God in an “explained” nature I think is a better approach.”
It also happens to be Biblical but you set up a strawman and it wasn’t a very good one either.
There may be better explanations than this one but I think He did because it pleased Him. Sometimes I draw pictures just because there’s something I want to see. God created Olympus Mons because He wanted to see Olympus Mons. He created man because He wanted fellowship with man.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
The discovery of these things should point to the power of our God, not lead us to question His sanity. We should be in awe of His power and infinite knowledge but more than that be thankful that though He considers the most distant star and has perfect knowledge of it, He loves me. Wow! Amen!
My post was directed at the Creationists who want to play scientist. If they want to say that the Earth is fine tuned for human life from a scientific perspective, they need to explain why so much of the Universe isn't, also from a scientific perspective.
Sometimes observations of God's Creation tell us things that traditional religious believers may not like, such as when Jesus observed that God treats good and evil people the same, which is why Jesus said we should love our enemies as well as our friends.
Why do some comets in the Solar System have periods of many millions of years?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.