According to a report in July 2003, NASA reported finding the oldest planet known to man. The planet is said to be 2.5 times the size of Jupiter and 13 billion years old. In the report, we find that this planet was formed just “1 billion years after our universe’s birth in the Big Bang.” We also find that it orbits a “white dwarf” star that has burned out. The entire report is centered on the fact that the Hubble Space Telescope “precisely measured the mass” of this planet.

There are many problems with this NASA report. How do they know that this planet is 13 billion years old? How do they know the mass of this planet was precisely measured? These are actually addressed by the NASA report and we will look into that.

How do they know the planet is so old and 13 billion years old?

NASA's explanation

“It was uncovered in what astronomers thought was an unlikely place, the crowded center of a globular star cluster called M4, which lies 5,600 light-years away in the summer constellation Sagittarius. Most globular clusters formed early in the universe, roughly 13 billion years ago. They have long stopped making stars and contain only old stars.”

This is no more than simple evasion. Is there evidence to this claim? The only evidence NASA offers is that “Most globular clusters formed early in the universe, roughly 13 billion years ago” and that this planet is in a crowded cluster of stars. So if this is the case, what makes this planet so special? NASA makes the statement in the report that “its very existence provides tantalizing evidence that the first planets formed rapidly.” I agree, the planet probably did form rapidly, when God spoke it into existence. Other then that, NASA offers no alternative nor evidence for their claim that this planet is so old.

The fact is that because NASA promotes the “big bang” and the Universe being 13.7 billion years old, they assume everything will fit that point of view. So instead of using facts, their idea of big bang forms their own opinions and assumptions of things without proper evidence to support such beliefs.

Does the finding of this planet mean anything to NASA and what are the implications?

NASA's explanation

“The planet's presence may challenge astronomers to revisit theories and models for how planets form. It was thought that lots of heavier elements and lots of time were needed to make a Jupiter-sized planet. But somehow the universe figured out how to do this very early in its history, when stars were just beginning to appear.”

This really raised some eye brows at Creation Press. We know how the planets were created. God created them. However, NASA believes that the “intelligent design” theory is completely unscientific. Anyone that believes God intelligently designed anything means this person “ignores the facts.” Yet we find NASA saying they are very surprised because this planet was formed very rapidly. Then NASA says something astonishing. “But somehow the universe figured out how to do this very early in its history, when stars were just beginning to appear.” So now, according to NASA the universe intelligently designed the planets. It takes intelligence to “figure out” anything. So according to NASA the universe has problem solving abilities. This is astonishing since believing “God” created intelligently is not scientific. Apparently NASA actually does follow “intelligent design.” They just don't agree with who or what intelligently designed it.

NASA plainly admitted that this planet was intelligently designed and that it showed up right after the stars appeared. So the stars just started appearing, and then the universe figured out how to make planets and intelligently designed this planet! This is considered science, yet the obviousness of God intelligently creating the stars and planets are just fairy tales.

So how did the Hubble Space Telescope measure this planet so precisely?

NASA's explanation

“Astronomers had to rely on some cosmic detective work to measure the planet's mass. Hubble observations were used to study a white dwarf star that the planet orbits. The two bodies are about the same distance that Uranus is from our Sun. Knowing the color and temperature of the dwarf allowed astronomers to deduce the dwarf's age and mass. This allowed them to calculate the tilt of its orbit around the pulsar. This then allowed the planet's mass to be calculated, assuming its orbit is similarly tilted.”

So NASA had to use “cosmic detective work” to measure the mass? So it isn't this open and shut case that we were lead to believe in this report? So let's just assume all of their math is right until they get to the last sentence. “This then allowed the planet's mass to be calculated, assuming its orbit is similarly tilted.” This one sentence puts it into perspective for us. This entire report is “ASSUMING” the orbit is similarly tilted. So without this one piece, the rest of the report falls apart. The entire report is hinging on an assumption? Well can't NASA see the tilt of the planet?

Can NASA see the planet and what does it look like?

NASA's explanation

“The planet is too dim and far away for Hubble to photograph. It probably looks like Jupiter, with belts and zones of clouds. It is so big it must be predominantly made of helium and hydrogen. The planet might have moons and rings.”

The planet is to far away and can not be photographed? Then we are told what it “PROBABLY” looks like, what it “MUST” be made of, and that it “MIGHT” have moons and rings. Perfect!

So the entire report is hinged on an ASSUMPTION of something NASA can't even see! This is a perfect example of how much of the “science” we are being taught is simply “assumption” and NOT fact. This being despite the fact that these assumptions are being taught as fact to American school children every single day. This entire report is nothing but speculation, assumption, probably, and might be.

So please be careful when reading these science reports. This is just one example in a million. I enjoy NASA and their science but you must know how to tell when something is true or not. Just remember, the Bible warns us of "science falsely so called.”