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!

How Far Can Astrobiologists Create A Story?

Looking for life on other planets is highly political, often times stories are hyped up to justify grant money for their research. Take this story on physorg which is one of the most bizarre studies that I have read which goes way beyond the realm of science…

“Computer models suggest Io formed in a region around Jupiter where water ice was plentiful. Io’s heat, combined with the resulting possibility of liquid water, could have made life plausible.”

This is by far a poor candidate for supposed life, firstly of of all, the surface has it’s extremes, part of it is sulfur dioxide snowfields at -130°F while other parts is a scalding hot lava lake at 1649°C. On top of that, it’s exposed to Jupiter’s deadly radiation! While scientists have rejected the idea of life on Io, astrobiologist Dirk Schulze-Makuch at Washington State University speculates from a computer model that there could be life there in the distant past.

Here we go, water=life equation is used so it’s assumed life had evolved even though there is absolutely no plausible observation nor explanation from research or nature that demonstrates on how life supposedly evolved from dead chemicals. The presence of water doesn’t prove anything on how life could emerge from it!  So how can they justify looking for life elsewhere when they have no clue on how it began on earth?

Astrobiologist Dirk Schulze-Makuch suggests we spend money on a mission to look for life on Io.  Here we go trying to justify grant money for a mission that is not based on science rather based on a far-fetched story telling from a computer model. Many bodies have water and ice. Some of which is found deep below the surface. The sun is another example which has protons and electrons that are supposed building blocks for life, do we start  looking underneath the sun’s surface for life with a probe because it was once cooler in the distant past?

Can scientists create an ever growing realm of complex speculation that continues endlessly and mindlessly while spending billions of dollars in the process? Now planetary and moon exploration is certainly a fascinating science, one of which we continue to learn from the real-time data but it certainly should not be used for an evolutionary story.