The Mercury Problem

The Mercury Problem

Is it possible for Mercury to be billions of years old as evolutionary models demand?

Recent space exploration has discovered significant evidence that would undermine these old-universe models. The Mariner 10 space probe (1974-1975) & the Messenger probe (2011) revealed much about Mercury’s makeup and have confounded scientists who adhere to the Solar Nebula Model.

Problem #1: Mercury is Dense

Mercury is very dense—possibly with an iron core of up to 75% of its diameter. The existing models of solar evolution cannot account for how such a dense and “cold” planet evolved so close to the sun over the billions of years necessary to conform to their theory. Mercury’s high density cannot be accounted for within the theories, models, and computer simulations of slow-and-gradual-evolutionary models.

Problem #2: Mercury has a Magnetic Field

Mariner 10 discovered that Mercury had a magnetic field which, according to existing models of planetary evolution, is impossible for a planet billions of years old with a solid core. Mercury’s large and dense core creates resistance which would decrease the amplitude of any magnetic field as the energy is converted to heat. This basic science dictates that the field would decrease over thousands of years, not billions. The rapid decay rate of the magnetic field indicates the planet must be younger than the billions of years necessary for the existing naturalistic theories

If Mercury had a dynamo, that might help resolve the magnetic field dilemma. However, existing models predict that a planet this small and 4.5 billions years old should have cooled down, thus eliminating the possibility of a dynamo at the core of Mercury.

Problem #3: Mercury has Volatile Elements

The Large Impact Hypothesis attempts to resolve the problem of the magnetic field by assuming that an early asteroid impacted Mercury, stripping off all the lighter materials leaving only the dense core. However, the presence of various volatile elements discovered on the surface of Mercury runs counter to the Large Impact Hypothesis and creates challenges for the Solar Nebula Hypothesis which says these volatile elements cannot be present on Mercury.

Conclusion

These three problems present a fundamental problem for Solar Nebula theorists and models that require billions of years of planetary evolution.

The heavens declare...

A great place to start your own study of astronomy and cosmology is this series by Spike Psarris who was previously an engineer in the United States’ military space program. He entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist. He left it as a creationist and a Christian. His website, and these 3 videos, help explose the bankruptcy of the evolutionary model, especially in astronomy.

Astronomy, Cosmology and a Study of God’s Creation

Astronomy, Cosmology and a Study of God’s Creation

Introduction

Ever since my days as an engineering student at Penn Sate University, I have loved science. My favorite course was Thermodynamics and Fluid Flow. I recently decided to continue some of my scientific exploration in a course of Astronomy, Cosmology and the Bible at SCS where I teach. As I study, I would like to share some of my discoveries here for anyone interested in reading along and starting their own study of the universe. I welcome all your comments and questions. This series is important to me, because I talk to more and more young Christians who think science is in conflict with their faith. It is not. Good science does not undermine or destroy a biblical faith and if you follow along, I will try to prove that statement true.

Solar Nebula Model

The dominant approach to explaining the origins of our solar system from an evolutionary standpoint is the Solar Nebula Model. In this theory, the sun and planets formed from a swirling gas cloud 4.5 billion years ago. Swirling clouds, filled with particulate, eventually formed into asteroids around a young sun. This model, Naturalists believe, explains both the orbital direction of all the planets rotating along the same plane and their variant composition in relative distance to the sun.

The Solar Nebula Model finds its origins in the Kant-Laplace Nebular Hypothesis. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant first proposed the idea of a gaseous cloud filled with particles brought together by gravity and bonded through chemical adhesion. in 1755. The French mathematician Pierre-Simon Marquis de Laplace advanced Kant’s model in his book, The System of the World (1796), with additional ideas including his theory of how the sun’s gravitational forces shaped the planets.

A Different Worldview

We all do science from a worldview. Anyone who denies this, is simply not being honest about their approach to science. As a creationist, I do not share the same worldview as these naturalists who promote the Solar Nebula Model, and therefore, we have some fundamental disagreements on how to interpret the same scientific evidence. Creationists believe the universe was created for a purpose by the will of God who ordained the laws which govern its existence (see Genesis 1). Naturalists believe the universe is a result of random chance and chaos which produced order.

There are some limits to understanding the history of our universe by science alone. As a creationist, science is understood to be a tool for discovering the past, but not the sole authority and source for knowledge as promoted by the Naturalist.  As noted by Spike Psarris in his video series, “What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Volumes 1”, “It is impossible to use science to prove any  historical event happened. All we can do is see which scenario fits the evidence best.”

In the next series of posts, I want to look at the formation of some of our planets and expose, in very simple terms, some serious problems with this model based on the most recent discoveries about the bodies in our solar system.

The heavens declare...

A great place to start your own study of astronomy and cosmology is this series by Spike Psarris who was previously an engineer in the United States’ military space program. He entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist. He left it as a creationist and a Christian. His website, and these 3 videos, help explose the bankruptcy of the evolutionary model, especially in astronomy.

Pin It on Pinterest