Posted by: Rob Lester | October 15, 2010

Gas giants form in a hurry

A gas giant is a planet that is not composed primarily of rock (terrestrial) and is at least ten times the mass of earth.  Jupiter, Saturn, and two other planets in our solar system are gas giants. Astronomers have long believed that gas giants are formed in the immense disc of dust which spins around a star.  However, NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope showed gas giants still being formed around stars that had lost their dust discs.  This creates a time problem for Big Bang evolutionists. They concluded that contrary to previous theories, gas giants must form “extremely fast” in the words of Thayne Currie of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. What is extremely fast by evolutionary standards? Less than five million years.  So rather than reaching the obvious conclusion that previous theories were wrong about how planets are formed, evolutionists instead magically chop off and dismiss millions of years in order to keep their theory.  Why, then, are creationists laughed at when they insist that the evidence shows that evolutionist time estimates are off by millions of years and the planets were formed “extremely fast” (one day)?  Evolutionary theory must be constantly adjusted to fit with scientific discovery (as is proper). But, isn’t it interesting how all these adjustments keep getting younger and closer to the Biblical timeframe. One scientist remarked, “Whatever process is responsible for forming [gas giants] has to be incredibly efficient.”  Amen!

“Baby Jupiter’s Weight Gain.”  BBC News 1/6/2009



  1. There is a bit of a logic stretch in play here. 5 million years is still quite different than 24 hours. (-More than 10,000,000,000 times smaller.) So, you may be right that models need to be revised, but the evidence certainly does not show that planets form in 24 hours, particularly in oue own solar system – (see findings from NASA Apollo geologic samples). The fact that astronomers see new planets forming (proplyds), and that they don’t appear in 24 hours is also telling. (i.e., astronomers regularly look at forming star systems in nebulae, and dust disks that had been observed around a “baby” star aren’t suddenly sucked up and consolidated weeks later. The disk is still there.) Some adjustments get younger, others get older (age of universe), but in all cases they are getting more precise. Two cents.

    • My point in these kinds of posts is twofold: ONE, it shows that theories and estimates which are fiercely defended and presented as ‘fact’ are frequently shown later to be in error. That’s fine. Science is, and should be, self-correcting and adjusted as technology improves our ability to measure. This is why I and many creationists are skeptical of what evolutionists are “certain” of today. They may be proven false by tomorrow’s discovery. We must always have a grain of salt handy. TWO, The ages-long processes of evolution seem to be getting steadily shorter. What we used to “KNOW” took billions of years, now takes mere millions. Human development keeps creeping backward toward the beginning as we find that alleged human ancestorss like Lucy and Ardi are older than evolutionary anthropologists expected. Once, again, their assumptions were wrong. Ancient humans were using tools, making clothing, etc. far earlier than they thought. It seems to be a steady march back to Adam and Eve!

      Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate the civil dialogue and scientific approach instead of the usual snarky mocking. God bless!

      • I also appreciate civil dialogue – it’s the only way to expect an exchange of ideas to occur. One point I’d like to follow up on in your reply – I hear quite frequently the argument that “well, what was true yesterday might be turned upside down tomorrow” as a means to justify skepticism. I’d like to clarify: there are certain realities at this point that are beyond upheaval. For example, Newton’s Law of Mutual Gravitation defines circular orbits. However, Newton was slightly wrong when working out orbits of planets. Kepler fixed it with his orbital laws of motion. Does that mean Newton’s Laws and concept of gravity were wrong? No, just oversimplified. It turns out Kepler was slightly wrong, as well, which Einstein predicted and fixed. Does that means that Kepler and Newton were wrong? No, again, just oversimplified, which leads to errors at the fringe.

        The same could be said for dinosaurs being more closely related to birds than lizards. Thirty years ago, the suggestion would have sounded ridiculous to paleontologists. However, this is not as far a stretch as it sounds, as lizards and birds are quite similar – ovids, (egg-laying,) therapods, (three-toed,) and are relatively close cousins as far as biology is concerned. The increasing discovery of feather impressions in therapod dinosaur fossils is adding weight to the “bird” view all the while, among other more subtle evidence. Does that mean the lizard understanding was flat-out wrong? No, for the reasons mentioned above. It was close. However, if someone were to have presented the evidence we have now thirty years ago, they would be just as convinced as we are today.

        -So, my point is simply that our understanding of the physical universe and its behavior is advanced enough (note: not complete, just advanced – we can describe basically every phenomenon we encounter,) we are beyond turning over any field completely. Einstein’s Relativity revolutionized the classical mechanics of Newton. Does this mean Newton’s observations were wrong? Not at all – they we as good as the measurement and measurer capability of the time, and hold as true in their frame of reference today as they did centuries ago.

        -Just something to consider. I hear the argument all the time – that science could change tomorrow so why believe it today – but that is a little shortsighted. No doubt we’ll have scientific revolutions and revelations in the future, but the well-obtained data we have today will stand tomorrow. The fringe is where the action is.

        Two more cents.

      • I’m not suggesting we reject today’s science simply because it may change tomorrow. I’m just saying it is not always wise to swallow hook-line-sinker. It would be nice if evolutionary advocates would scale back the thundering certainty of these kind of things too. Statements like “Evolution is a proven fact; we know without a doubt dinosaurs evolved into birds; Ida is definitely a human ancestor” don’t really help the dialogue or advance true science. The observable, testable, and repeatable kind. Good thoughts, astrowright.

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


%d bloggers like this: