Solar System Origin Model is Faith, not Science

Know why there are multiple ideas about the formation and evolution of the solar system? Because none of them can stand up to cold, pitiless logic. They all have serious flaws, and corral the facts as well as a broken fence. Still, secular cosmologists keep trying to bring back the least flawed old nag, put a new set of horseshoes on it, and hope it can travel. Ain't happening. Then they use the same failed hypotheses as explanations for the formation of other solar systems, but never mind about that now.

The nebular hypothesis for the formation of the solar system was run through a computer model. The hypothesis still fails.
Artist's conception of planetary formation around Beta Pictoris / Credit: NASA / FUSE / Lynette Cook
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The nebular hypothesis is the current favorite, and a new computer model was set up to show how lots of luck can make it all happen, and there's no need for the Creator (Col. 1:16, Psalm 14:1); maybe a bit more spin caused by the right conditions... Many assumptions and a great deal of faith are involved in making the model, but not much in the way of actual science.
How did our solar system get here? Those who dismiss any possibility of creation imagine ways that pure natural forces might set in motion the sun, each unique planet and their moons. New computer modeling results seem to show promise—but only when they overlook or assume obvious and important factors.

According to the nebular hypothesis, the solar system’s planets formed from a condensing, swirling cloud of dust called a nebula. Publishing in The Astrophysical Journal, Carnegie’s Alan Boss and Sandra Keiser showed how a supernova’s shock wave might have produced dust disc rotation around an early sun. Their computer models illustrate the effects of such a collision with a giant theoretical nebula.
To finish reading the article, click on "Protoplanetary Disc Model Falls Flat".