Evolutionists believe that in the Big Bang theory: Nothing exploded, creating everything. The dust resulting from the explosion coalesced into bigger and bigger chunks, eventually becoming the sun, planets, and moons. This process resulted in very hot planets, which are cooling to this day. According to evolutionists, the universe is about 15 billion years old. Is it a foregone conclusion that the planets of our solar system came about in this way?
Mercury
Mercury is so dense that it is thought to have an iron core occupying ¾ of its diameter. This density conflicts with the evolutionary model of slow formation and gradual cooling. How do evolutionists explain this? An evolutionary miracle! The planet was struck by a large object that removed all of the less dense material.
Saturn
If Saturn were billions of years old, it wouldn’t have rings. Furthermore, the rings are thought to be made of particles that are coated with reflective ice. The ice wouldn’t take too long to accumulate dust, and the rings would be much darker than we see them. These factors are thought to limit the age of Saturn’s rings to 100 million years (about 1/150th of the suspected age of the universe). How do evolutionists explain this? An evolutionary miracle! Saturn used to have a moon that was struck by a large object, shattering the moon, and creating the rings.
Mars
Evolutionary scientists believe that at one point Mars’ atmospheric pressure must have been 1 to 5 bars. The pressure now is .008 bars. This means the atmosphere used to be much thicker. How do evolutionists explain this? An evolutionary miracle! The planet was struck by a large object that blew the atmosphere away.
Uranus
Uranus’ axis of rotation is offset 90° from the other planets; it appears to rotate on its side. The magnetic field on Uranus is tilted and offset from the center of the planet, relative to Uranus’ axis. This is contrary to the evolutionary models. How do evolutionists explain this? An evolutionary miracle! The planet was struck by a large object, knocking it off kilter.
Venus
While Uranus’ axis is tilted 90°, Venus’ axis is tilted 180°, and it rotates the opposite direction of the other planets. The law of conservation of angular momentum would indicate that the Big Bang would cause all planets to rotate in the same direction, but this isn’t the case with Venus. How do evolutionists explain this? An evolutionary miracle! The planet was struck by a large object, causing it to rotate in the opposite direction.
The planets we see today disprove the evolutionary model. When a theory of the planets’ beginnings is proved wrong time and again, it’s not scientific to stick dogmatically to that model, invoking miracles to explain the model’s veracity. The scientific thing to do is to throw out the Big Bang, and move on to a different theory.
Fisher of Men 
You a are thoroughly confused here.
Evolutionary science is part of biology.
You are talking about the science of the cosmos.
Ken,
Good to talk to you again.
There are 6 types of evolution:
1. Cosmic Evolution (the Big Bang–time, space and matter are brought into existence from nothing)
2. Chemical Evolution (the origin of higher elements from hydrogen)
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the formation of stars, planets, galaxies, etc.)
4. Organic Evolution (the origin of life from non-life)
5. Macroevolution (Darwin’s theory)
6. Microevolution (Variation within kinds. Microevolution is the only category that is observable.)
Thanks,
Bill
I would be nice for once if a creationist didn’t simply parrot talking points he read on a creationist website somewhere.
In fact, I bet I can guess the exact website you got all of your information from. Would it be.. Answers in Genesis?
I’m surprised you didn’t simply copy and paste from AiG. Oh wait, you kinda did.
You wrote:
Answers in Genesis says:
I will answer your points, though, despite the obvious plagiarism.
1.) The whole mocking tone of your post indicates that you have no real argument. Your insinuations that “something just hit it” is a default astronomical hypothesis, even when it has no evidence, is just wrong. The fact is that there’s a lot of evidence of violent collisions in our solar system. Look at any planet that doesn’t have an atmosphere. What do you see? Craters. Millions and millions of craters. What do you see in between planets? Asteroids. In fact, a whole belt of them. The biggest asteroid we’ve discovered so far is almost 1000 km in diameter. That’s a third of the size of Mercury.
2.) Just because Saturn’s rings may be only 100 million years old doesn’t necessarily mean anything about the age of the planet. Your argument only makes sense if you assume that everything in the solar system developed at the same time. Which it didn’t.
3.) Actually, you’ve got the explanation completely wrong. Mars used to have geologic activity (we know this because Mars has huge volcanoes). Geologic activity is produced by molten metals churning inside the planet. This churning causes a magnetic field. This magnetic field, in turn, deflects the solar wind, which is a wind of ionized particles, such as electrons and protons, given off by the sun. When Mars’ geologic activity stopped, it no longer produced a magnetic field. Thus, it couldn’t deflect the charged particles. The result is that the solar wind “blew off” Mars’ atmosphere. We’ve actually detected this with telescopes.
If Earth didn’t have a powerful magnetic field, this same thing would happen to our atmosphere.
4.) As for Uranus and Venus, it’s currently unclear why they orbit the way they do. Nothing in physics prevents either of their orbits, however. For one thing, your discussion of angular momentum makes no sense. Conservation of angular momentum doesn’t mean that all objects should be rotating the same way. It just says that if a planet is rotating one way, it needs to transfer its rotational energy to something else in order to change rotation. That’s what “conservation” means. Anyways, the Big Bang has nothing to do with the angular momentum of planets. At the Big Bang there were only particles, not planets. Planets formed later.
The easiest way to circumvent your claim is by noting that when a rotating object flips perpendicularly to its direction of rotation, the rotation observed from a fixed position appears to reverse. In other words, if Saturn is spinning leftward as you look at it, and you flip it on its head, it will now be rotating rightward. Note that this doesn’t even require a transfer of energy.
Jon,
1. When a theory doesn’t work out, it’s not scientific to invoke an unprovable event to explain why your theory doesn’t work. It would be okay to do that once in a while, but when it’s required for 55% of the planets in the solar system, there’s a problem.
2. I believe the universe is much less than 100 million years old. Saturn is just another example of invoking this unprovable event.
3. That is one theory for what happened to Mars. No one knows for sure. An asteroid strike is another possibility. There are also other theories.
4. Some object affected the angular momentum of Venus and Uranus? I’m pretty sure that’s what I explained in the post.
I have no problem with asteroids, but when you have to keep calling on them to explain why your theory doesn’t work, that indicates a problem with the theory. You’re apparently comfortable with calling on asteroids to bail your theory out. Do you realize you’re betting your eternity on this? Are you really comfortable with that?
Thanks,
Bill
The problem here is that you don’t understand the nature of scientific claims. They’re always, no matter what happens, tentative. Always. Science doesn’t “prove” that things happen. That’s a myth propounded by creationists and poor science journalism. What science does is develop the likeliest model of how things happen given the available evidence. When you can point me to a mainstream astronomy book that claims to know how various anomalies in our solar system arose, I might take you seriously here. The fact is, scientists DON’T know. We have several hypotheses, and some of them are promising. But no astronomer claims to know. That’s why scientists will often refer to the “leading hypothesis”. Or they’ll say, “What we think happened is…”
But you were trying to use the age of Saturn’s rings (as determined by science) against science. You were inventing a scientific controversy that doesn’t exist in order to bolster your point.
There are other hypotheses, yes. But the one I described is the likeliest, given that we can actually observe it happening.
Wrong. That’s not what you said. First of all, you invoked the conservation of angular momentum to argue that all bodies should be rotating in the same direction. You got that wrong. That’s not what it says. Then you assumed, for the sake of argument, that angular momentum could change, and claimed that the only way that can happen is through an impact of some kind. Also wrong. Planets can transfer their angular momentum from a distance via gravity.
Ever heard of a ‘gravitational slingshot’? That’s when astronomers use the gravitational pull of a planet to fling a satellite into a certain trajectory. That process is possible because of the conservation of angular momentum. When you use a gravitational slingshot, you’re actually speeding up your satellite at the expense of the planet’s angular momentum. In other words, the planet’s angular speed slows by a very small amount (compared to its total), and your satellite increases in speed by a very large amount (since its such a tiny thing compared to the planet).
Jon,
1. I have no doubt that astronomers don’t know how the solar system formed. That’s the problem. Why are you being so dogmatic about something no one knows?
3. According to what I’ve read it isn’t the likeliest theory, as it accounts for very little of what had to happen. Maybe it’s right, and maybe it isn’t, but no one knows.
4. If the big bang is true, all objects should be spinning the same direction. Whether Venus was struck by an object, or just affected by its gravity, it’s still an unprovable event.
It seems to me like you’re getting pretty excited about the tiny fraction of knowledge you have. Why so passionate Jon? Could it be that you’re trying desperately to avoid even thinking about the fact that you’re a wicked sinner who will stand before God on Judgment Day, and be sentenced to eternity in hell? Did you know that the smoke of your torment will rise forever and ever if you don’t repent?
Thanks,
Bill
I’m passionate because you’re trying to pass yourself off as an expert on something you clearly know nothing about.
If I’m not mistaken, it was Jesus who taught humility, who berated the hypocrites, who equated lying with the worst of sins. Perhaps you should, as the Bible advises, take the beam out of your own eye before taking the mote out of another’s. Just because you proclaim yourself a spokesman for your god doesn’t make it so. You’re a liar, a hypocrite, and a fraud.
Do you deny it?
Jon,
As far as I can tell we’ve only disagreed on two substantive issues so far:
1. Whether the conservation of angular momentum would dictate that all planets, stars, etc. resulting from the big bang would be rotating in the same direction.
2. Whether or not it’s ridiculous to claim that so many of the planets have been profoundly affected by asteroids.
Anyone who has ever told a lie is a liar, right? How many murders do you have to commit before you’re a murderer? Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen even a penny in your life? Jesus said that if you’ve ever looked at a woman with lust, you’re an adulterer at heart. Have you ever looked at someone with lust?
Surely you’ll admit to those, and I do too. We’re both liars, thieves and adulterers. I called you a wicked sinner, and I have no doubt that you are. What I didn’t tell you is that I’m a wicked sinner, too, along with Carl Sagan and Mother Theresa. If there is a Creator, which has been made abundantly clear that there is, and He cares about justice, we all deserve to be punished for our sins. Does that concern you?
Thanks,
Bill