Puzzling Planetary and Satellite Formation

Anti-creationists dismiss creation scientists through prejudicial conjecture and poisoning the well, claiming that creationists' explanations are essentially, "GodDidIt, that's all". Some serious investigation of creationary materials will show that this is incorrect. While admittedly there is a grain of truth to the "GodDidIt" claim, creationary scientists do not stop there; they want to know how God did it, and more.

Some evolutionary theories of the formation of the solar system, including planets, comets, satellites and so forth have occasional plausibility from a historical science perspective, but have many failings under scrutiny. Essentially, when cosmological theories break down, ad hoc explanations are rustled up and added in, but those theories should be put out to pasture. "EvolutionDidIt" or "NaturalProcessesDidIt" are unhelpful.

"Starfield 3" from Sad Monkey Designs
Creationists have pointed out the numerous flaws in the theories of solar system formation and how they are inadequate to explain what is actually observed. Dr. Danny Faulkner discusses some basic principles, flaws — and issues some challenges to creationist scientists to delve deeper into some of these same questions.
I present a review of the two types of planets and the orbital characteristics of their satellites and evaluate evolutionary explanations for them. While the naturalistic theories may explain certain features, other features require a number of well-timed catastrophic events. To have so many of these events is very improbable. The evolutionary theory cannot explain certain aspects of solar system bodies. To date, there have been few comprehensive proposals for a creationary model of the solar system. The invocation of design must be carefully thought through.
To finish reading, click on "Anomalies with Planets and Satellites in the Solar System—Indication of Design?