Comet, Asteroid Impacts as the Answer to Everything

Print Article
Posted on September 23, 2013 in Astronomy, Dumb Ideas, Geology, Origin of Life, Physics, Solar System

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 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  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.



Jon Saboe September 23, 2013

If big bangs can produce universes and galaxies, why can’t little bangs produce planets and life???

Seems like a logical continuation to me.

lux113 September 23, 2013

Jon, I’m not familiar enough with your comments and perspective to be 100% you are being sarcastic/facetious here.

But yes, IF an explosion can create a universe THEN a small explosion could, i suppose, create a planet or produce life… or a 300 million ton pan of deep dish lasagna.. or anything I suppose.

But giant explosions don’t create universes out of thin air.. contrary to popular belief.

lux113 September 23, 2013

Ok, Jon now that I clicked your name and see the books you’ve authored, yes, you are being facetious.

Jon Saboe September 23, 2013

I like lasagna…

Good to meet you, lux113

blackhawk September 23, 2013

Let’s say for the hell of it that the universe is 10 trillion years old or say 100 trillion years old.
Does psudo science mean that one time in this beginning that walah ; Everything just went poof and there it was.Everything must have a beginning and an end so the question is HOW ???
Yes I know you say then where did God come from ? God said “I am the beginning and the end . If God is who He says He is ; Then He always existed but nothing could have existed until He got around to creating something.
I forget where the Bible said “Science is foolishness”.
The problem is that scientific study produces huge allotments from the public and government. Man is corrupt and so is some science .
When I die ; I will either know there is a God OR I will know absolute NOTHING. I choose God.

Editor September 23, 2013

blackhawk, the Bible does not say Science is foolishness. It warns against knowledge falsely so called (I Tim 1:20). Please check your facts before making comments in public. You should address something specific in the article instead of stating generalities or merely telling your own opinions.

JimPamplin September 23, 2013

Dave, as you say, Everybody believes in miracles.
It comes down to this: One either believes an Intelligent Agent with a plan created the universe and laws that govern it; or else one believes the universe sprang out of nothing by mindless, spontaneous magic. The first option provides the presuppositions for an intelligible universe hosting rational minds capable of exploring it — the prerequisites for science and knowledge. By contrast, the second option is the epitome of irrationality — a tripwire to insanity. A worldview that embraces spontaneous magic ultimately brooks no constraints. Anything can happen with or without a cause. In such a world, there is no basis for knowledge, expectation, or explanation. Irrationality is king, and the horse he rides is insanity.

Leave a Reply