Venus – Earth-like? … but hot!
by Raymond Strom
Venus appears in our sky as the morning and evening star. It is one of the brightest objects in our night sky and is located close to Earth. Little was known about Venus’ physical nature until the last half of the twentieth century. Thick clouds obscure the surface of Venus, so surface features could not be seen. Spacecraft observations using infrared, ultra-violet and radar have changed all that. Early observations indicated that the atmosphere was very hostile, being of high enough temperature to melt lead, and corrosive compounds of sulfur and carbon dioxide made early space probes fail upon descent into this high-pressure (90 earth atmospheres) environment. Venus suffers from extreme atmospheric heat trapping by the greenhouse mechanism.
It appears that Venus’ surface is completely covered with lava. But if the interior of the planet has abundant lava, then why are there no tectonic plates moving around on that molten lava interior?
It seems Venus is not so similar to Earth! It appears that the surface of Venus is very young geologically.
Venus held more surprises as a result of the surveys conducted by orbiting spacecraft. It is assumed Venus was formed as the result of the condensation of the original solar nebular cloud almost 5 billion years ago, according to evolutionary astrophysicists. It was supposed to be similar in nature to Earth, but it is not. For example, Venus was supposed to have formed at the same time using the same processes and materials. As such, it should still have a magnetic field if the planet’s core is still molten and the dynamo theory is correct. But it does not have a magnetic field. It is conspicuously absent. So, we now have Mercury, showing evidence of a magnetic field when it should not have one, and Venus, not having a magnetic field when it should have one. The predictions are the reverse of what they ought to be.
It is further claimed that Venus once had a moon, but that its moon was blown away by an asteroid. What is the evidence for this? None. Seemingly, it just makes a good story based on the evolutionary model. And this is called science!
In spite of all the hype, it appears that Venus is young after all, and does not display a consistent beginning with the rest of the solar system based on the nebular hypothesis model. It appears that Venus is rather unique. The predictions of astrophysicists have been largely wrong in dealing with Venus. If the measure of a good model is to make predictions, then it should cause one to wonder why evolutionists have not abandoned their bad prediction model.