September 28, 2005 | David F. Coppedge

Do Dead Meteorites Tell Tales?

Several researchers lately have claimed that meteorites can tell us the history of our solar system.  How can this be?

  1. Messages from Heaven:  Richard Kerr in Science1 reported on work by Strom et al. in the same issue2 that the asteroid belt was the source of the so-called “late heavy bombardment” that is said to have pummeled the early solar system 3.9 billion years ago.  One researcher who had been working on this “problem” for 35 years completely changed his view based on the study.  Strom’s team hypothesized that the gas giants rearranged themselves, and then modeled how impactors might have been flung inward from the asteroid belt as a consequence.  Kerr writes, “Cratering specialists suspect that Strom and his colleagues are on to something, but they say the case remains open.”  Another said they could be right, but “we have to be careful.”
  2. Crystal Balls:  A Purdue University press release says “meteorites offer glimpse of the early Earth.”  Purdue scientists measuring the isotopic ratios in Antarctic meteorites think they can deduce the temperature of their formation.  From this, they believe, they can tell whether they formed at the same time Earth formed, or later.  It’s not like reading a book, exactly; one scientist said, “There are still quite a few unanswered questions about the earliest periods of the Earth’s history, and this study only provides one piece of the puzzle.”
  3. Treasure Chest:  As if to one-up the previous claim, EurekAlert printed a Florida State story that an “unusual meteorite unlocks treasure trove of solar system secrets.”  The Tagish Lake meteorite that fell in Canada in 2000 led a FSU “geochemist to a breakthrough in understanding the origin of the chemical elements that make up our solar system,” the press release claimed.  What did he find?  An unusual ratio of isotopes of osmium.  From this, he believes he can tell what kind of star produced the element, and when.  His hypothesis, however, flies in the face of earlier suggestions that the element came from dust from a nearby star.  No, the leader of the team says: his findings “reveal that the raw materials from which our solar system was built are preserved in a few exceptional meteorites, from which we can now recover the prehistory of our solar system.”

1Richard Kerr, “Another Hint of Planetary Marauders,” Science, Vol 309, Issue 5742, 1800, 16 September 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.309.5742.1800a].
2Strom et al., “The Origin of Planetary Impactors in the Inner Solar System,” Science, Vol 309, Issue 5742, 1847-1850, 16 September 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1113544].

Several things stand out from stories of this genre.  (1) The new finding contradicts earlier beliefs.  (2) The new finding is put in the context of a vast field of unanswered questions.  (3) Evolution is a given.  (4) The accepted age of the solar system (4.6 billion years) is a given.  (5) Most of the work remains to be done.  (6) The check is in the mail (e.g., from this tiny tidbit of hypothesis, “we can now recover the prehistory of our solar system”).  (7) Once we figure this out for our solar system, we will unlock the keys to other stars and planets, and to the whole universe.  (8) This finding is the greatest thing since primordial soup.
    This is the way evolutionists kid themselves that they are doing science.  They envelop themselves in periodic tables, lab instruments, and equations.  So far so good.  But since the Big Picture of Evolution has already been decided to be fact by decree, every piece of data must be forced into it.
    Working this way requires adding whatever ad hoc elements are needed to keep the story going, as well as ignoring uncomfortable facts.  Dr. Walt Brown, for instance, who has a very different theory for the origin of impactors (see website), said this about Strom’s theory:

Without explaining how asteroids formed in the first place, Kerr and Strom try to explain why asteroids in the main belt were shaken up by moving the giant planets around, and appealing to the extremely weak Yarkovsky effect and planetary resonances.  (The radiometer effect is much stronger, because water molecules are much more massive than photons.)  Showing that the size distribution of MBAs [not accountants, but Main Belt Asteroids] corresponds to the early craters in the inner solar system does not mean that the early impacts came from the asteroid belt.

Each scientist working under evolutionary, naturalistic assumptions is a willing accomplice to this game of self-deception.  Their motive is to contribute a brick for the Temple of Charlie, which produces gratification that one is doing his part to advance the cult.  Whether the cult matches the real history of the universe, well – how could they ever tell?  Of course, you’re only likely to hear the evolutionary side in the media, because they are all part of the cult, too.

(Visited 16 times, 1 visits today)
Categories: Solar System

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.