: Gideon, looks like those gases aren't all constant.Which falsifies the axiom that they are; it doesn't actually challenge the idea that the Sun and the Earth formed out of an accretion disk of thinly distributed elements.
: I refer the the evidence that Jupiter may be older than the sun, as posted today by the Discovery Online News (http://www.discovery.com/news/briefs/brief1.html).
Actually, the link you quoted is popular science; not accurate science; which is why they got away with an inaccurate title.
What they're actually saying is that the material that formed Jupiter may have been around as icy material before nuclear fusion started in the centre of the Sun. As such, Jupiter is not "older than the Sun"; but "older than the Sun's nuclear furnaces"; there's a difference.
It doesn't render the model of the Sun's formation useless; merely adds a revision that makes it more accurate; it reinforces the model we have, as our data is that much more complete.
: Actually, they were created the same day -- Day 4 of Creation week.
According to one source and one source only.
It's a theory, but not a scientific one; it would certainly be rejected as a Ph.D. thesis.
Can you test the Universe for evidence of God without referring to the Bible?
Gideon.
None.
