....by whom also he made the worlds; Hebrews 1:2
"There are two main secular explanations for planet formation.
They are both variations of the nebular hypothesis that involves a giant disk of gas and dust supposedly left over from the formation of a star.
The most popular model is the core accretion model.
Supposedly, dust particles coalesce to form larger clumps, these clumps coalesce to form even larger particles called planetesimals, and these planetesimals eventually form “baby” planets. This process, thought to take millions of years, better explains the existence of terrestrial planets, but it has more difficulty explaining the existence of gas giants.
The second, less popular idea, is called the disk instability model. According to this idea, such disks, if they rapidly cool, can become unstable. Then they break up into large clumps of gas that can form planets relatively quickly, in just thousands of years.
As mentioned earlier, both are variants of the nebular hypothesis, which suffers from serious problems.
*Both have difficulty explaining the Sun’s slow overall spin rate, characterized by a lower-than-expected amount of angular momentum.
Some references gloss over this problem, asserting that the Sun’s spin slowed down because angular momentum was somehow transferred away from the Sun. The key word is somehow, because secular scientist don’t have a detailed, quantitative explanation for exactly how the Sun did this.
Likewise, recent observations suggest that gas and dust disks surrounding some stars simply don’t possess enough mass to actually make planets.
*Furthermore, many exoplanets completely defy the expectations of the nebular hypothesis. The model predicts that planets in a given solar system should orbit their suns in the same sense that their respective suns are rotating. Yet many exoplanets orbit the “wrong” way!"
ICR
"There are two main secular explanations for planet formation.
They are both variations of the nebular hypothesis that involves a giant disk of gas and dust supposedly left over from the formation of a star.
The most popular model is the core accretion model.
Supposedly, dust particles coalesce to form larger clumps, these clumps coalesce to form even larger particles called planetesimals, and these planetesimals eventually form “baby” planets. This process, thought to take millions of years, better explains the existence of terrestrial planets, but it has more difficulty explaining the existence of gas giants.
The second, less popular idea, is called the disk instability model. According to this idea, such disks, if they rapidly cool, can become unstable. Then they break up into large clumps of gas that can form planets relatively quickly, in just thousands of years.
As mentioned earlier, both are variants of the nebular hypothesis, which suffers from serious problems.
*Both have difficulty explaining the Sun’s slow overall spin rate, characterized by a lower-than-expected amount of angular momentum.
Some references gloss over this problem, asserting that the Sun’s spin slowed down because angular momentum was somehow transferred away from the Sun. The key word is somehow, because secular scientist don’t have a detailed, quantitative explanation for exactly how the Sun did this.
Likewise, recent observations suggest that gas and dust disks surrounding some stars simply don’t possess enough mass to actually make planets.
*Furthermore, many exoplanets completely defy the expectations of the nebular hypothesis. The model predicts that planets in a given solar system should orbit their suns in the same sense that their respective suns are rotating. Yet many exoplanets orbit the “wrong” way!"
ICR