When geologists or planetologists have a puzzle, they have a ready answer: send in the flying rocks!
Gold from space: Geologists have a problem. Primordial gold in the earth’s interior should have sunk to the core. The BBC News told the story of how an impact theory solved the problem – for awhile. It was the favored theory for years: meteors rich in gold laid a veneer of precious metal on the crust long after the earth solidified. Astrobiologists like it because impactors might have also brought building blocks of life. Now, however, some are having doubts. Experiments show no similarity between elements in the crust and those in the meteorites. There’s a tug-of-war going on between the analytical geochemists (who like astrobiology) and the experimental geochemists, the article explains:
Analytical geochemists — the group of researchers that measures trace elements in rocks — have come to see their research as crucial to understanding the emergence of life on Earth. Humayun says that experimental geochemists — the group of scientists attempting to recreate the conditions of the mantle in the lab — are more open-minded.
“It’s about how you make your money! If you’re an experimentalist, then you’re eating the late veneer guys’ lunch by doing these experiments.
“Why the analytical community likes the idea (of a late veneer) so much is something that continues to trouble me. It’s because of this relevance they have tied in to the origin of life. There’s a lot riding on it!”
Life from space: Speaking of the origin of life, a new sweep of articles, like on Space.com and Astrobiology Magazine, claims that “comet crashes can spawn the ingredients of life.” Mark Price at the University of Kent was able to get a simple amino acid from firing steel projectiles at comet-like ices.
Price cautioned, “We have not created life. Not even close. What we have done is demonstrate a process that takes molecules that were present at the time of the birth of the solar system and made them into molecules that are required for life. It’s like taking simple LEGO bricks and sticking two together. You are a long way from building a house, but it is a start.”
Moon madness: “A conference has been called at the Royal Society to try and regain some sort of consensus on how the moon was formed,” the BBC News reported. Some sort of answer was agreed on: it had to come from “some sort of giant impact.” Now some think the impact was 100 million years later than thought, Live Science said. “The finding, which would make the moon 100 million years younger than previously thought, could reshape scientists’ understanding of the early Earth as well as its natural satellite,” the article ended, implying that present “understanding” is anything but.
These are just recent examples of impact theories invoked to solve problems. Other puzzles “explained” by impacts include the extinction of the dinosaurs, the source of earth’s ocean water, the origin of Saturn’s rings, the tilt of Uranus, and more.
It’s quite comical watching secular scientists invoke their “magic bullets” every time they have a problem. Spike Psarris has illustrated this cleverly in a highly recommended video, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy: Our Created Solar System (at CreationAstronomy.com). Over and over, he quotes planetary scientists invoking impacts to solve insoluble puzzles, as if shooting bullets at a system will make it better. He illustrates this by repeating a video of an impactor coming in, to the sound of a trumpet charge—hilarious! Critics hate it, but they can’t fault his sources, because Psarris (a former evolutionist) only quotes secular “experts” as they reveal their own ignorance.
The tactic of imagining special conditions (the ad hoc scenario, or special pleading) is no better than invoking miracles or pixie dust. We’re being asked by the secularists to believe that multiple impacts came in at just the right time, just the right speed, and just the right angle to fix every problem. Such scenarios, of course, are not observable or repeatable, so they should not qualify as science – aside from the obvious fact that impactors, highly destructive as they are, are hardly desirable as problem solvers. Can you believe what Price said? Imaginary bullet creates Lego block by chance. It’s a long way from building a house, but it’s a start! Good grief. Maybe he’ll get the house faster if he shakes the pieces in a sack.
Everybody believes in miracles. Some believe in impossible miracles of chance; others choose to believe in miracles of intelligent design. An intelligent agent with a plan is more likely to produce good results than a bullet. Compare those two “processes” on a car or computer some time; that should be a reproducible science project. Another is to give Lego blocks to a kid. Within an hour, you will have an intelligently designed system, with the designer eager to tell you all about it. Shoot bullets at his creation, though, and you will get wrath.