Home / Science VS Evolution / PDF /Encyclopedia  /Pathlights Home / Bookstore


Scientists want to tell you why the universe did not make itself. Evolution is wrong. Here are scientific facts to prove it. Evolutionary theory is a myth; creation science is correct. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink shows it begins a new page.

CONTENTS: SCIENTISTS SPEAK about the Origin of the Solar System

Planetary Theories: Scientists tell us they are foolish ideas
Angular Momentum Problems: Rotation differentials do not fit the theories
Uranus' Strange Orbital Motion: Uranus' rolling motion is totally unexplainable by evolutionary theory
Earth's Post-Helium Elements Not on Sun: The theories cannot explain this
Saturn's Rings: Those extensive rings do not fit the theories
Earth's Moon: More problems for the theorists
Conclusion: The theories are hopelessly inadequate

Related Articles

THE AGE of the Universe: Scientific evidence indicates it is quite youthful
ASTRONOMY Class Discussion: A student explains some facts to his university professor

This material is excerpted from the book, ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Origin of the Solar System.


None of these theories really explains facts in our solar system as they are.

"But if we had a reliable theory of the origin of planets, if we knew of some mechanism consistent with the laws of physics so that we understood how planets form, then clearly we could make use of it to estimate the probability that other stars have attendant planets. However no such theory exists yet, despite the large number of hypotheses suggested."—*R.A. Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (1968), p. 4.

"How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the origin of the creation of the plans of [evolutionary] organization, if one relies entirely upon the imagination to find a solution?"—*Pierre de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 178.

"Science has been seriously retarded by the study of what is not worth knowing."—*Jonann von Goethe (1749-1832), quoted in Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 257.

"According to this idea, a dust cloud began to rotate . . When the mass had swept up most of the material in an eddy, a planet was formed."—*M. Bishop, *B. Sutherland, and *P. Lewis, Focus on Earth Science (1981), p. 470.

"Planetary accretion, like most other aspects of solar system origin, is imperfectly understood. But it has always been difficult to see how the start was made, why dust particles, chondrules, Ca, and Al-rich inclusions chose to clump together."—*J.A. Wood, The Solar System (1979), p. 167.

"To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the [evolutionary] origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist."—*Harold Jeffreys, the Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution (1970), p. 359.

"It is important to be aware that there is no one theory for the origin and subsequent evolution of the Solar System that is generally accepted. All theories represent models which fit some of the facts observed today, but not all."—*Mars and Earth, U.S. Government Printing Office, NF-61 (August 1975), p. 1.


The sun turns the slowest, the planets the next slowest, and the moons the fastest. But, according to evolutionary theories, the opposite should be true.

"Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun; for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?"—*David Layzer, "Cosmology," in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.

"A theory of evolution that fails to account for this peculiar fact [mass-angular momentum] is ruled out before it starts."—*David Bergamini, The Universe, p. 93.


Uranus' rolling motion is a puzzle the experts cannot solve.

"The spacecraft's fabulous set of data [did not] shed any clear light on why a planet should evolve as Uranus did, spinning so oddly. [It rolls along on its side]. Perhaps . . despite everything found in January [1986 during the Voyager 2 flyby] we'll never know the answer."—*J.K. Beatty, "A Place Called Uranus," in Sky and Telescope, April 1986, p. 337.


Nearly all the elements on earth are hardly to be found on the sun. Yet if the earth came from the sun, it ought to have the same kind of elements.

"Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they amount to only about 1 percent of the total mass . . The contrast [with the heavy elements which predominate in the earth] brings out . . important points. First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them."—*Fred Hoyle, quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1967, p. 73.


Saturn's complicated ring systems just do not fit the theories.

"Saturn, a planet of nearly one hundred times the mass of our earth, has millions of amazing and fragile solid bodies in orbit in the form of the familiar relatively thin rings of Saturn. According to the spectrum measurements by Dr. G.P. Kuiper of the University of Arizona, these rings are composed mainly of solid ammonia. Since solid ammonia has much higher vapor pressure than ice, for instance, it is questionable whether the ammonia could have survived for the supposed life of the planet of some 4.5 billion years.

"The eminent astronomer, Dr. H. Alfven has stated that it is likely that any force action today could have caused the ring structure of Saturn, and probably that the rings were formed at the same time as Saturn itself. He points out that it is doubtful that such a fragile ring-like structure could survive the tremendous tidal forces (gravitational, as well as other forces) on it if its age is actually, as generally believed, 4.5 billion years old. Many scientists agree with Dr. Alfven that it is indeed unlikely that any force acting today could have caused the ring structure of Saturn."—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 73.


Earth's moon is full of surprises that theoreticians cannot explain.

"To the surprise of the scientists, the chemical makeup of the moon rocks is distinctly different from that of rocks on earth. This difference implies that the moon formed under different conditions . . and means that any theory on the origin of the planets now will have to create the moon and earth different ways."—*Jerry E. Bishop, "New Theories of Creation," in Science Digest, October 1972, p. 42.

"The moon is always falling. It has a sideways motion of its own that balances its falling motion. It therefore stays in a closed orbit about the Earth, never falling together and never escaping altogether."—*Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), p. 400.


The solar system theories just do not agree with the facts.

"The problem of formulating a satisfactory theory of the origin of the solar system is therefore still not solved."—*H.S. Jones, "The Origin of the Solar System," in Physics and Chemistry of the Earth (1956), p. 15.

"All the hypotheses [regarding solar system formation] so far presented have failed or remain unproven when physical theory is properly applied."—*Fred C. Whipple, Orbiting the Sun (1981), p. 284.

"I suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher's value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that."—*John Eddy, Geotimes (1978) [italics ours].

"The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy . . For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."—*Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978).

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," in Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

"Everything points with overwhelming force to a definite event or events of creation at some time or times not infinitely remote."—*James Jeans, Eos or The Wider Aspects of Cosmogony, p. 35.

"One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, `My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?' Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, `Nobody!'

"Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, `Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?' Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, `You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is.'

"Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder. `This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system, whose laws you know,—and here I am not able to convince you that this mere toy before you is without a designer and maker! Yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?' "—The Minnesota Technology, October 1957.

"If the universe is a universe of thought [structured in a planned, thoughtful manner], then its creation must have been an act of thought."—*James H. Jeans, Mysterious Universe (1932), p. 181.


Forward to the next topic in this series: THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE which provides evidences pointing to its youthful age.