The Planet that Should not be There

Seems like the goal of the secular science industry is not to learn and interpret data, but to make naturalistic pronouncements. This may play well with atheists and other owlhoots advocating long ages, but discoveries should be teaching them a bit of humility. Not happening, Hoss.

Kepler-78b should not exist because it frustrates secular cosmologists and materialistic planetary formation ideas
Artist's conception of Kepler-78b, credit: Wikimedia Commons / Hemsley Jenkins (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Here, we'll look at space exploration. Regular readers of this site (and the linked sites as well) have seen numerous items that have startled or shocked secular astronomers and cosmologists because they exhibit signs of youth, not an ancient universe. This is primarily because these scientists are operating from naturalistic presuppositions, denying the Creator who made everything much more recently than is dreamt of of in their philosophies.


Also, planets both in our solar system and outside (known as exoplanets) get cosmic evolutionists on the prod because they are in defiance of planetary formation concepts. Kepler-78b "shouldn't exist", but there it is anyway. Not much of a vacation spot, though. Hot, rocky, in the "wrong" place...ever notice they they still haven't found anything remotely possible of habitability?
. . . scientists today repeatedly encounter evidence that thwarts theories of evolutionary origins and long-age timelines. An example is the exoplanet Kepler-78b, about 20% larger than Earth and weighing twice as much, recently discovered in the constellation Cygnus. Its discovery is so confronting to planetary formation theories that a media release by the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) proclaimed, “Kepler-78b is a planet that shouldn’t exist.”
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Kepler-78b: The “scorching lava world” that 'shouldn’t exist'". For a similar article, click here.