2,315
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: − + − − − “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr who was proposing a new planetary formation model, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” <ref> Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605 cited at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref> − − − "No one knows quite how planetesimals ever attain protoplanet status." <ref>D. Kaisler, The puzzles of planethood, Sky & Telescope 104(2):32-38, 2002.</ref> − − − “It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” <ref> Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54. cited at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes46.html</ref>
declutter
== Young Earth Creationism View ==
== Young Earth Creationism View ==
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]]s assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the planet formation are inadequate and contra-evidential. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences3.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of planet formation are inadequate:
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]]s assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the planet formation are inadequate and contra-evidential. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences3.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of planet formation are inadequate.
== References ==
== References ==