Creationists: did the Earth exist before the Sun, or vice-versa?

There is a good deal of evidence that the formation of planets is not well understood and may not be possible at all according to current nebula theories. There is also evidence that our sun is much younger than we think which leads one to question how the earth and other planets could have formed as well according to such theories.

According to the Bible, God created the earth before the sun, moon and stars and the earth was a watery world from the beginning....not a molten mass which gradually accumulated water over billions of years. If comets or meteors were the source of water on earth, there would be far more heavy hydrogen in the makeup of water on earth and argon in the atmosphere.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhy...

The angular momentum of our solar system also contradcts the formation of it from the sun as do the rotational directions of some planets and moons..

Angular Momentum. The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ210.h...

". “With so little in common with the familiar Solar System planets, these newcomers spell the end for established theories of planet formation.” Dan Falk, “Planet Formation,” Nature, Vol. 422, 17 April 2003, p. ix.

u “Extrasolar planets have peculiar properties, and our understanding of how planets form, which was incomplete even before the new data became available, now looks even shakier.” Dan Falk, “Worlds Apart,” Nature, Vol. 422, 17 April 2003, p. 659.

u “[Planets] form through processes that do not clearly fit into any of the standard theoretical models.” Frank, p. 30"

.“The discovery by Maciej Konacki of a giant planet in a system where the gravitational pull of a second star would disturb the planet’s putative nursery will now place severe constraints on such [evolutionary] theories.” Artie P. Hatzes and Günther Wuchterl, “Giant Planet Seeks Nursery Place,” Nature, Vol. 436, 14 July 2005, p. 182.

u “In July [2005] Caltech planetary scientist Maciej Konacki turned up a world with three suns in the constellation Cygnus. Finding that a planet could exist in a multiple-star system counter to theoretical expectations, ‘will put our theories of planet formation to a strict test,’ says Konacki.” Jack Kelley, “Hunt for Another Earth Broadens,” Discover, Vol. 27, January 2006, p. 26.

. “Finally, it is possible that regardless of how many and where planets form, the dynamical perturbations experienced over the history of the cluster would be too disruptive to allow the survival of any planets ...” Steinn Sigurdsson et al., “A Young White Dwarf Companion to Pulsar B1620-26: Evidence for Early Planet Formation,” Science, Vol. 301, 11 July 2003, p. 195.

u “The discovery of a giant planet amid a cluster of primitive stars is challenging one of astronomers’ pet notions. ... [The planet would have to have been] born billions of years before most astrophysicists thought the universe had spawned the raw materials needed to make them.” Robert Irion, “Ancient Planet Turns Back the Clock,” Science, Vol. 301, 11 July 2003, p. 151.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhy...

Evidence of our sun being quite young....

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio...

http://www.creationdiscovery.org/cdp/articles/shrs...

It's also interesting to note that the Bible proclaimed thousands of years ago that the stars could not be numbered or counted.....the deeper we peer into space, the more stars and galaxies we find. We currently estimate there are around 26 septillion but no one knows for sure. How would someone know to write that a few thousand years ago?

Jeremiah 33:22

‘As the host of heaven cannot be numbered,

And yet God calls them each by a name..........

‘He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names ’ (Psalm 147:4).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/st...

Edit:

Ok, why does earth have an abundance of water and properties in comparison to other close planets and answer the rest of the observations which dispel the formation of planets.

. “Earth has substantially more water than scientists would expect to find at a mere 93 million miles from the sun.” Ben Harder, “Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s Oceans Come from the Heavens?” Science News, Vol. 161, 23 March 2002, p. 184.

b

. The water content of Comet Tempel 1 was 38% by mass. [See Endnote 4 on page 285.]

c

. “Hence, if comets like Hale-Bopp brought in the Earth’s water, they would have brought in a factor of 40,000 times more argon than is presently in the atmosphere.” T. D. Swindle and D. A. Kring, “Implications of Noble Gas Budgets for the Origin of Water on Earth and Mars,” Eleventh Annual V. M. Goldschmidt Conference, Abstract No. 3785 (Houston: Lunar and Planetary Institute, 20–24 May 2001). [To learn how comets probably collected argon, see Endnote 38 on page 288.]

d

. “Oxygen, D/H and Os [osmium] isotopic ratios all ... rule out extant meteoritic material as sources of the Earth’s water.” Michael J. Drake and Kevin Righter, “Determining the Composition of the Earth,” Nature, Vol. 416, 7 March 2002, p. 42.

D/H is the ratio of heavy hydrogen (also called deuterium, or D) to normal hydrogen (H). Drake and Righter give many other reasons why meteorites could not have provided much of Earth’s water.

e

. “If existing objects in space couldn’t have combined to make Earth’s unique mix of water and other elements, the planet must have formed from—and entirely depleted—an ancient supply of water-rich material that has no modern analog, Drake and Righter argue.” Harder, p. 185.

f

. “If water came from millions of comets or small asteroids, the same steady rain would have bombarded Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, so they would all have begun with the same water characteristics, he says. However, the waters of those four planets now have dissimilar profiles, Owen and other geochemists have found.” Ibid.

“The carrier’s [the tanker’s] elemental and isotopic characteristics would have to have been unlike those of any object that researchers have yet found in the solar system. ... it doesn’t seem geochemically plausible ...” Ibid., p. 186.

Edit2:

@paul h: Do you actually have any evidence of the Earth forming before the Sun or of any other rocky planet forming before its star?

Do you have a conceptual model of how this could even happen?

_ The evidence I already provided show that a purely naturalistic means of planetary evolution is not credible...ergo, the origins of planets and stars seems to have been from a super- or supra-natural means. The reference above shows a planet which did not form after it's stars....

" “The discovery of a giant planet amid a cluster of primitive stars is challenging one of astronomers’ pet notions. ... [The planet would have to have been] born billions of years before most astrophysicists thought the universe had spawned the raw materials needed to make them.” Robert Irion, “Ancient Planet Turns Back the Clock,” Science, Vol. 301, 11 July 2003, p. 151."

A recent scientific study called the RATE project also details many observations which confirm a young age for the earth and argues against billions of years of cosmic evolution....consistent with the Biblical account of creation explained in Genesis. If the earth is a young planet, what other purely naturalistic explanation can be given? I believe there is none....there is simply not enough time.

The only conceptual model I could offer is what Genesis describes...God "spoke" the earth, sun, moon and stars as well as the heavens and time itself into existence around 6000 years ago. Quantum physics and string theory also suggest that all matter is made up of "vibrations" or resonances....God is still speaking to us through matter we conceptualize or observe. According to Hawking, Penrose and Ellis, we know that time, space and matter all had a beginning and that they are all inter-related...none could have originated before the other and the first verse in Genesis confirms this.

http://www.icr.org/article/114/

http://www.icr.org/rate/

Given the evidence I have submitted, what would you offer as a naturalistic viable, conceptual model for the formation of stars and planets?

In addition, there is also evidence of vast amounts of subterranean waters...perhaps five times as much as all the oceans of the world. How would planetary evolution account for this?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/03...

I would kindly suggest that you read the whole chapter in Dr Brown's online book regarding problems with stellar and cosmic evolution problems.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhy...

1) Why does the bible say liquid water and the earth exist before the sun? It's practically certain that liquid water existed before the Sun formed. The claim that the Earth - as a planet - existed before the Sun formed is contrary to modern, well-accepted scientific theory but is certainly not beyond reason (that is: the Earth *could* have formed before the Sun did; modern scientists believe that the Earth formed relatively shortly after the Sun did, but it *could* have formed shortly before the Sun did). 2) is proves the bible cant be from God To arrive at this conclusion, you need to fall short in *two* areas: scientific knowledge and logic. It is *not* proof. 3) without the sun liquid water couldn't exist That is one of the most careless statements I have ever read. Think about it! - Jim, Bach Sci Physics 1989

It is a known fact that blowing something up generally destroys, not creates. Than the big bang theory came along. It’s a genetic fact that one species of animal can not magically become another species of animal. Incidentally, secular scientists have admitted that evolution has been proven to be mathematically impossible. They have no explanation for this. There is a huge difference between “scientific consensus” and “scientific fact”.

The naturalistic viewpoint clearly has determined that some species within the same class have different socio-developmental traits which implies racism not as an accepted practice but as a scientific reality. The whole theory belittles people and reduces us to an accident. It takes a lot more faith to believe that gibberish than it does to believe that God did it. Furthermore, creationism can not, has not, and will not ever be disproven.

Darwinism created a stage in which the ignorant follow the smart who are to proud to admit their theory makes no sense at all. It’s quite possibly the greatest sham in world history. Darwin’s theories constantly contradict themselves and bring up more questions than they answer. The Bible on the other hand clearly states the story simply and flawlessly. No one has ever, nor will anyone ever be able to disprove it.

There are no contradictions in the Bible. The evolution story on the other hand has more holes in it than a bombed out Swiss cheese factory. You speak boldly without wisdom and your words confirm the lack of intelligence and moral fortitude that your theory represents. Case and point being that you probably don’t understand the “big words” in my answer. I don’t mean to sound demeaning but at the same time you opened the can…

Upon coming across your question you’re clearly spouting off in some sort of ignorant rant without any thought or reasoning behind it. You should not attack what you do not understand. From the looks of things here… Your understanding is limited to what others tell you. You’re like a sheep following wolves with no capability at all of a thought that is your own. You should never create an adversary out of ignorance and attack what you don't understand. It makes you look juvenile. Again, I don’t mean to sound harsh but at the same time this is how you came across.

(Literal) Day 1 Genesis 1:1-5 states that God created the earth. On this first day the earth was a void in space staring at the sun. This was not the earth we know today. No plants and animals, a complete barren ball of water as land had not yet been introduced.

(Literal) Day 2 Genesis 1:6-8 states that God separated the waters above and below. A shield of ice or mist was introduced into the atmosphere. The expanse between the waters was called “sky” and this was the second day. Basically, this is when He made our atmosphere.

(Literal) Day 3 Genesis 1:9-13 states that God created land and divided it from the water. The world looked somewhat “Pangea” like in form, as the continents were all together. God than created all the plant life we see today.

(Literal) Day 4 Genesis 1:14-19 states that God created the stars in the sky and the moon and set the revolution of the earth in motion around the sun. The Earth was not capable of sustaining life before this step.

(Literal) Day 5 Genesis 1:20-23 states that God created the creatures of the sea and the air and he blessed them. Incidentally, this is the first blessing in the Bible.

(Literal) Day 6 Genesis 1:24-31 states that God created all the land animals and than humans and gave us humans dominion over the Earth and told us to take care of it.

(Literal) Day 7 Genesis 2:1-3 states that God rested on the seventh day and made it holy as an example for us to use one day a week as a day of rest.

There was about 2000 years between the great flood when the waters above came and flooded the land and creation. Before the flood, people lived to be several hundred years old and the differing atmospheric conditions allowed for constant growth. As for dinosaurs, there were never any different species than what we see today. For example, if my dog never stopped growing over his 600-year life I’m sure he’d be as big as a house!

During the flood the earth below the waters broke apart creating the continents we have today. The flood also dramatically changed the atmosphere, as there is no longer water above the earth. The new atmosphere accounts for the differing atmospheric changes and climate we see today as before the flood the earth would have been fairly temperate.

After the flood there was 2000 years before God came to Earth in the form of Jesus. It has almost been 2000 years since Jesus came. His return is foretold in Revelation and many prophesies about that return are being fulfilled now.

Dave

Our church, the Church of Christ, does indeed believe that the earth existed before the sun, however I am not able to accept that. Other churches believe that as well, like the 7th Day Adventists. I believe more like the JW's, that the sun was there all the time, just not visable from the earth's surface for some reason, perhaps because of a dense fog or cloud barrier.

It's hazy. According to the bible God created the heavens and the earth and THEN said "Let there be light". Is the sun included in the term 'heavens'? If so, then the sun was in place BEFORE the earth was created even if it wasn't emitting light. If the sun is not considered to be part of 'the heavens' then it's logical to conclude that the sun was created when God said "Let there be light". This would place the creation of the sun AFTER the creation of the earth.

According to Genesis, the earth was created before the sun, moon, and stars. The first verse of Genesis 1 is an introductory statement providing a summary of what is covered in the rest of the chapter. The light that was initially created had nothing to do with the sun. The Bible considers that light--the light of day--to be separate from the light of the sun.

That, of course, shows that the Bible contradicts what we know, or should know (Bible believers, of course, ignore what they should know).

The Bible says light(the sun) came before the creation of earth. Its in the first paragraph of genesis.

The sun was already there. God made it show light. So we do not know how long the sun was in the sky not producing light.

Well it seems that you answered your own question with your own preconceived ideas so there's no need or no point in telling you what I think because it would fall on deaf ears. Nice try at trying to initiate an argument though. At least you were nice about it.

Did you actually see planets get formed and confirm that it's true?

Many proto-stars and young stars can be observed to be at various stages of this process.<<==So how many of them have planets?

I notice they can´t even keep their own story straight.