Why the Nebular Hypothesis is Wrong
Our solar system is a special place. For one, our solar system contains the only planet with life as of now. There are also other special bodies in our solar system besides the sun, Earth, and moon, such as the two ‘dancing moons’ of Saturn that switch orbits every four years. When we look to the stars and realize the small number of potentially habitable exoplanets, we may in fact be alone in our galaxy.
The two dominant beliefs on how the solar system came into existence are the Genesis account and the Nebular Hypothesis. The Genesis account states that during creation week God had created the whole entire physical universe around 6000 to 7000 years ago. The latter states that the whole solar system formed from a cloud of gas and dust some 4.6 billion years ago. Both require faith to believe in, and the United States is split around forty percent for each side. As certain planets and moons are mentioned in our solar system, the evidence against the Nebular Hypothesis becomes clear, and that creation is how the universe, and our solar system, was formed.
The Nebular hypothesis is just wrong to begin with. Regardless of the rest of the evidence in this paper, this one point strikes a fatal blow in the theory; Gas tends to expand, and those forces of expansion overpower the gravitational forces that are supposed to create the planets. Instead of this gas collapsing into itself like the Nebular Hypothesis suggests, the gas actually would have expanded and no planets or stars would have been formed. Now even if the gravitational forces somehow won against the forces of expansion, the theory still has serious, serious problems. For one rocks wouldn’t just melt and stick together in space, they would simply bounce off each other and there would be a giant cluster of space rocks.
The first planet in the solar system with serious problems is Venus. According to evolutionary theories, Venus should have more craters than a mere 935, which suits the creation model quite well, especially if a lot of impacts happened during the time of the flood or creation week. The naturalists then proposed that the surface recycled, or almost completely changed, despite that the vast majority of these craters show no sign of modification. Venus also spins backward, or retrograde, unlike the other planets except Uranus, which also spins retrograde. The old explanation that Venus had a lump is actually the opposite compared to Venus’s true shape, the roundest sphere in the solar system.
Jupiter has the most problems of any planet or moon on this essay. Jupiter should be very different from what it is today, or not even exist at all. For one, Jupiter should have a massive core that is much larger than what the core’s size really is, if Jupiter even has a core to begin with. Another problem is that the gas cloud would have dissipated in half the minimum time it took for Jupiter to form, and Jupiter wouldn’t exist. Even if the cloud lasted long enough for Jupiter to form, the planet, along with Saturn, would slam into the sun within 300,000 years after Jupiter was formed. Another problem comes from Jupiter’s moon Io. Io is slightly larger than our moon, and is the most volcanically active place in our solar system. Io’s volcanoes present a big problem for naturalists. Io should not have active volcanoes, even with Jupiter helping volcanoes erupt, if the solar system is 4.6 billion years old. If the universe is 6,000 or 7,000 years old, then volcanoes aren’t a problem at all.
The next sphere that causes problems for naturalists is Titan. Titan is Saturn’s largest moon, and is full of methane. Methane gas is required for many processes on moons like Titan, and all methane on Titan would have run out in a 4.6 billion year old universe, but in a 6,000 or 7,000 year old universe, then the presence of methane would be fine. The last planet to be mentioned is Neptune. Neptune, according to naturalist theories, should be either much colder or shouldn’t exist at all. If Neptune were to form naturalistically, then Neptune wouldn’t exist since the dust cloud would be gone and Neptune would have taken ten billion years to form. That is more than 75% of the age of the universe according to naturalists. Even if Neptune were to form somehow, that wouldn’t explain why Neptune generates more heat than what the sun supplies, because according to naturalistic theories, Neptune shouldn’t generate much heat at all.
The point to this essay is not to blindly believe a scientist saying that the universe or solar system is billions of years old. They only say that because in order to maintain their belief system, the universe has to be billions of years old. Besides, the probability of a planet like Earth developing by chance is extremely low to begin with, so believing that Earth developed by chance is like gambling for your future, your children’s future, many generations down the road. Many planets and moons in the solar system point to creation by the direct hand of God as the only way the universe, and the solar system, have formed.