How Do We Know Our Solar System Is Young?

One of the most accepted hypothesis or theories in evolutionary science claim our solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago. Many theories have been built around this assumption in order to make predictions of what is out there in space. On the other hand, the Biblical account implies a much younger solar system. Is there evidence for a young solar system? The answer is, “yes!” Evolutionary scientists call it a mystery while creation scientists call it a confirmation.

The old age framework claims an accretion disk appeared which gravity used to flatten into a spinning disk.  From this disk over millions of years they claim, gravity caused planets to form and other objects. Once it reached a certain level or point, the excess gas and dust dissipated and cleared away, leaving the solar system as we observe it today.

The disk, also known as a nebula then becomes the source from which everything in our solar system was formed. However as science advances, evidence for a young solar system has been causing problems with this hypothesis.  Chemical-change is a good indicator on how old an object is.  The Cassini mission with its probe has been one of the amazing tools for discovering what is going on in our solar system!

For one thing, Scientists who have been modelling Titan’s atmosphere have made calculations using old-age assumptions concluded that no methane should be present on Titan rather it should have been used up in the first tens of millions of years of the moon’s history. There is some replenishment going on with the methane which is evaporating off Titan’s surface but not enough to account for the amount detected by the Cassini probe.  There is a lot of chemical-changing activity going on which is why evolutionary scientists were surprised to find so much methane on Titan. Also, methane escaping Titan’s thick atmosphere into space lowers the ten million year range as well.

The old-age assumption has encountered other problems with evidence for a young solar system.  Such as our sun, where in the old-age model suggests 30 percent less of the total energy the sun gave out than it is now. This causes a problem with evolutionary expectations on how life began on earth because with 30 percent less energy being giving out by the sun, the earth would be like an ice-ball, thus making it impossible for earth to create or sustain life. This is known as the faint young Sun paradox.

On a moon of Jupiter called Io, evolutionary scientists discovered another problem with their old-age assumption.  Io has an amazing array of many volcanoes that are much more active than Earth’s volcanoes. The heat given off by these particular volcanoes is much more than what Earth is producing. There was an expectation of volcanic activity with some heat but nowhere near the extent that was discovered because of the old-age assumption.

As a result, two more assumptions have been invented to explain the falsification of the new discovery. One is, the interior of Io and the amount of heat generated by all the volcanoes and the other is massive tidal forces due to gravity from Jupiter that squeeze Io and cause its shape to oscillate, generating heat inside Io. However, the geology of Io is not a mystery and is more logical when thinking in terms of youthfulness because the processes work well if the heat present after Io’s creation is simply used up and dissipates over several thousand years!

These are just a few examples on how we know our solar system is young rather than billions of years old. We observed, chemical-change on Titan that resembles its youthfulness, the sun being too cool to sustain life, and the heat from Io is another indicator. What an amazing solar system that was designed by God where we live in today!

4 thoughts on “How Do We Know Our Solar System Is Young?

  1. “One of the most accepted hypothesis or theories in evolutionary science claim our solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago”

    Two major mistakes in the first sentence.

    1) the age of the solar system is a measurement, not a hypotheses
    2) ‘evolutionary science’ does not exist. There is an evolution theory in biology, I’ve heard …

  2. Michael continually comes down hard on scientists for making what he calls “assumptions.”

    Yet he himself makes even greater assumptions in proselytizing for a young earth.

    The assumptions that science makes are grounded in physical evidence, almost always from multiple independent sources. The constancy of atomic decay rates—recently measured to one second in 30,000 years. Observations of thousands of extra-solar planetary disks in various stages of aggregating in the same way. The convergence of fossils, molecular structure, and developmental biology to confirm common ancestry of life. Many types of “standard candle” showing the distance—and therefore age—of stars.

    Michael’s assumptions are pulled solely from one sacred text. In order to uphold its narrative, Michael must assume atomic decay rates vary by a factor of millions to one. For this assumption, he adduces not one single bit of physical evidence. He assumes that planetary disks cannot form as astronomers describe—not only does he have no evidence for this assumption, but it is contradicted by the evidence we do have. The assumption of simultaneous creation of life forms is not only contradicted by the evidence, but we see life’s continuing evolution today, before our very eyes. His assumption that all stars are the same young age has not a single shred of support, and contradicts Einstein’s equations and many other established physical principles.

    In this post, Michael assumes, with no evidence whatever, that an early sun 30% less strong would result in a snowball earth. Has he done any calculations? No. Has he consulted any sources? No. In fact, the earth itself generated much more heat then than it does now, so the evidence is against him.

    Michael assumes that we know the composition of Titan’s surface and its interior geology, and that these “should” be similar to earth-like conditions. In fact, we know nothing of Titan itself, and it could be very different from earth. Michael also assumes that Titan’s atmospheric phenomena have gone on since the moon was formed—also on the basis of no evidence whatever.

    Michael assumes that Io’s volcanoes have been constant since the moon’s formation—for which there is no evidence.[1] Not only is there no evidence for this, but tidal friction can explain them, even if they are ancient. Michael merely dismisses this without any evidence or argument.

    So, while Michael castigates science for “making assumptions,” he must make even greater and more fanciful unsupported assumptions in order to uphold his beliefs. Definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


    [1] In fact, we wonder why Michael brings up these volcanoes, since his creation theory has no explanation for them either! Why should a young earth lead to volcanoes on Io at all????

  3. Michael’s criticisms of the age of the solar system based upon deficiencies in theory reminds me of the classic criticism of capitalism by communist: “Well, capitalism may work in practice, but it doesn’t work in theory.”

  4. “the geology of Io is not a mystery and is more logical when thinking in terms of youthfulness…”

    EXCEPT for all the other evidence consistent with an old earth view–such a nuclear decay that takes millions of years, and the nuclear fusions processes which fuel hydrogen bombs and the stars, and so on. For the excess heat of Io to overturn the mountains of other evidence in favor of an old earth view is an instance of the tail wagging the dog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s