Planet Origin Theories Contradict Physics
Materialists sound much more confident than they are about their theories for the origin of planets.
Evolutionists have mastered the art of bluffing. So confident are they in their worldview of big-bang-to-man evolution, they can leap over tall anomalies in a single sentence. It takes critical reading to see this. Usually, they will start a paper or article by asserting evolution as a fact, about which there is no controversy, in order to claim their turf. Then, when discussing the actual evidence, they will raise the perhapsimaybecouldness index higher and higher as hard data bring multiple questions and anomalies to explain, and theoretical problems rise like high hurdles before them. Resolution of the unknowns is put off to futureware, while they claim that the unexpected new findings have increased their “understanding” of evolution. The presentation is almost formulaic, allowing reporters to just borrow the boilerplate and modify a few words here and there.
We see this strategy often in articles on biological evolution, but it appears just as often in articles on planetary science.
Interstellar ‘GEMS’ Lead Researchers Back to the Early Solar System (Space.com). Chelsea Gohd illustrates the technique. As a cheerleading reporter for secular planetologists, she starts with the opening bluff, reassuring unsuspecting readers that secular materialist experts “know” things from their divination techniques, and are getting warmer to full “understanding” of our solar system.
Scientists are following a trail of interstellar dust all the way back to the formation of the solar system.
What we now know as [sic] the solar system began as a cloud of interstellar dust and gas. By studying “pre-solar” dust, which was preserved in cosmic objects like comets before they made their way to Earth, scientists [i.e., secular materialists] can peer back in time to the early solar system.
Planetary scientists sound like crystal ball gazers, the way Chelsea tells it. They can peer into crystals of dust, seeing visions the rest of us can’t discern. All we see is a mature system of planets following the laws of nature discovered by two Bible-believing creationists, Kepler and Newton. Where is this “early solar system” of dust and gas? You can’t see it.* The NASA-funded astronomers only see bits of comet dust they collected on high-altitude craft. Somebody decided to call them GEMS (“glass with embedded metal and sulfides”). Ah, but it takes special eyes to be able to look into the GEMS to discern the past, and see into the future. Here comes the futureware, the high perhapsimaybecouldness score, and the promised understanding:
By studying “the starting materials of planet formation from 4.6 billion years ago,” we might gain “a deeper understanding of the processes that formed and have since altered them,” Ishii said in the statement.
Following this research, the team will explore additional comet dust to better understand the composition of GEMS and the size of the sub-grains, according to the statement.
When such busy-work and speculation gets the blessing of the National Academy of Sciences, who dares stand up to such giants of “understanding”?
*Note: astronomers see dust disks around other stars, but it takes philosophy to imagine them forming planets. For all they know, the dust is debris from collisions as bodies break up, not build up.
Exploring the dusty prehistory of the solar system (Phys.org). Following her lead, Chris Packham at Phys.org prophesies more about the hidden wisdom in the GEMS. As an exercise, readers can hunt for the opening bluff, the perhapsimaybecouldness score, and the futureware. Did any of them actually witness dust turning into a planet?
The solar system as we know it formed about 4.6 billion years ago as fields of interstellar dust orbiting the sun aggregated into planets and smaller objects. Presolar dust particles no longer exist in the inner solar system, as they were long ago destroyed, reformed, and reaggregated in multiple phases. From the vantage of such a long period of time, astronomers can only make inferences about its composition and the processes that led to the solar system’s present configuration, bringing to bear advanced instruments on Earth, in orbit, and in deep space to collect evidence.
Storytelling about long-lost processes can sound more legitimate when you have something in hand to look at. “Cassini mission data suggest the presence of iron metal in contemporary interstellar dust,” the researchers say, “contemporary” referring to present-day dust. But what does it mean? It should mean that iron exists now, in the present, in dust particles that a modern spacecraft gathered and looked at. Hope Ishii at the University of Hawaii hopes that modern particles can become her crystal balls for more visions of ancient things. Watch for the maybes, the excuses and the promissory notes:
The researchers note that the complex organics in the ice-mantled grains must have experienced a high-radiation environment before incorporation into larger bodies, which may have resulted from vertical diffusion of dust above the solar system’s mid-plane.
The researchers conclude by noting that their picture is incomplete, and much of the data is still rough—for instance, the elemental composition of GEMS sometimes only matches the solar elemental composition collectively, exhibiting chemical anomalies at higher resolution. But they believe they have provided constraints on solar system development and the aggregation of presolar dust that will inform future studies, observations and models.
Experiments trace interstellar dust back to solar system’s formation: Chemical studies show that dust particles originated in a low-temperature environment (Science Daily). This article reporting on the same work by Hope Ishii’s team follows basically the same formula. Surprisingly, the Phys.org article said that the dust formed at high temperatures, but this article quotes another team member who says, “The presence of specific types of organic carbon in both the inner and outer regions of the particles suggests the formation process occurred entirely at low temperatures.”
Multiple generations of grain aggregation in different environments preceded solar system body formation (PNAS). The reason for the discrepancy about temperatures becomes evident in the paper on which the above articles are drawn. The team of 9 (including Cassini ringmaster Jeff Cuzzi and Stardust scientist Donald Brownlee, co-author of Rare Earth) postulates “multiple generations” of particles, some hot and some cold. With that supposition, they can read any scenario they wish to believe, using material that has been destroyed and reworked as props for their scenario.
The initial solids from which the solar system formed consisted almost entirely of amorphous silicate, carbon, and ices. This dust was mostly destroyed and reworked by processes that led to the formation of planets. Surviving samples of presolar dust are most likely to be preserved in comets, small cold bodies that formed in the outer solar nebula. In interplanetary dust particles originating from comets, we observe organic carbon mantles on subgrains within amorphous-silicate−dominated grains called GEMS (glass with embedded metal and sulfides). Our observations constrain GEMS grain formation to cold and radiation-rich environments, making a compelling case that these exotic grains, unique to a relatively obscure class of extraterrestrial material, are surviving dust from (variable) interstellar environments and thus the original building materials of planetary systems.
It is not the job of a scientist to tell readers they have made “a compelling case.” The evidence should be doing that. Brownlee should know better. One of the big surprises of the Stardust mission for which he was chief scientist is that comet particles that were actually collected directly from Comet Wild 2 showed evidence of high temperature melting. Contrary to the belief at the time that comets represented pristine material, the dust had evidently been heated to white-hot temperatures. This sent them scrambling to come up with stories of transport of the dust into the inner solar system and back out again. The data contradicted the visions dancing in their heads, as a contemporary JPL press release said in 2007:
The comet samples collected by Stardust contain abundant crystalline minerals and in most cases it is clear that they did not form by the predicted mild heating of interstellar dust. Many are too large, and have complex mineralogical and chemical compositions that could not have formed by this process. Instead of the mild heating that astronomers envisioned the comet samples were heated during their formation to severe temperatures, temperatures high enough to melt or vaporize them. The temperatures above 1300 °C and the samples were white hot. This is quite remarkable because the [sic] some of the ice components of comets appear to have formed only 30 degrees above absolute zero. The comet is very odd mix of materials that formed at the highest and lowest temperatures that existed in the early solar system. Comets have been cold for billions of years but their ingredients are remarkable products of both fire and ice. Because the rocky materials in comet Wild 2 formed at such high temperatures, we believe that they formed in the hot inner regions of the young solar system and were then transported all the way to beyond the orbit of Neptune.
Now, in this new PNAS paper, Brownlee and his colleagues are saying that “Most of the mass of interstellar dust (97 to 99%) is completely reprocessed in the ISM [inter-stellar medium] and is subjected to shocks, impacts, recondensation, and repeated cycling in and out of dense molecular clouds.” Re-processing also occurs for most of the dust within the solar nebula believed to be the parent cloud of our solar system. The Abstract admits, “Bona fide physical samples for laboratory studies would yield unprecedented insight about solar system formation, but they were largely destroyed.”
And so we see them using divination tactics to choose which particles remained as ‘pristine’ leftovers. Those become their materialistic fairy dust, the remnant particles out of which Earth was born, and everything on it evolved, including us. Since the GEMS theoretically formed in the fridge of space, they must be the magic seeds that became people!
The paper starts with the typical secular bluff: “The solar system formed from interstellar dust and gas in a molecular cloud.” That’s a statement of materialistic belief, not a scientific fact. To show why, let’s see if they have found, after decades of trying, a way for dust particles to accrete into planets (e.g., 3 Feb 2004, 5 Dec 2007, 15 Aug 2015). As we have shown many times, particles in space tend to bounce off each other and grind down to dust, not accrete into bigger objects. An object must grow to about a kilometer in diameter to have enough gravity to attract other particles by accretion. This was a major reason for the ‘heretical’ view called disk instability (the other major reason being migration, a type of migration into the star that would destroy growing planetesimals; see 21 March 2006). Let’s see if this team has finally figured out how to get particles to accrete:
- In the Introduction: “Knowledge of the dust from which our molecular cloud and, later, the solar system formed is critical to our understanding of chemical and physical processes in star-forming regions, the inventory of organics incorporated in the solar system, and the accretion and subsequent evolution and processing of solar system bodies.”
- In the concluding Discussion: “GEMS are thus first-generation aggregates in which subgrain mantles may have played a role in the aggregation (or accretion) process.“
- In the concluding Discussion: “However, in the absence of identified physical samples, there has been ongoing debate among astronomers about the significance of composite grains, either as aggregates or as organic mantles on silicate grains. Specific mechanisms and environments for accretion are also far from settled.”
That, dear readers, is all they say about accretion: GEMS “may have played a role” in accretion, but the specific mechanisms and environments for accretion “are far from settled.”
Update 6/28/18: Planet formation starts before star reaches maturity (Phys.org). This article shows how worldview assumptions can drive interpretations. All these researchers at the Netherlands Research School for Astronomy detected (by indirect means) were dust particles about 1 millimeter in diameter, when they expected them to be 1 thousand times smaller. The “surprising” conclusion? “The results indicate that planets already start forming while the star is still developing.” Logically, it could be just as true that the particles are grinding down from larger sizes into dust. These astronomers are assuming accretion is a fact leading up to planets when, as just shown, how that could happen is contrary to laws of physics.
Who pays these guys?* Materialists continue to be wrong, wrong, wrong for decades, for centuries (at least as far back as Laplace), and yet they bluff their way out of every problem, promising “understanding” to the peons who don’t yet understand “science.” But even peons know that snowballs don’t accrete into bigger snowballs during a snowball fight. And peons know that dust bunnies do not accrete into living bunnies (see “Is Making Planets Child’s Play?”, 5 Dec 2007, where Jeff Cuzzi said, “How the first stage of this process, primary accretion, works is a fundamental unsolved problem of planetary science.”) If the secular wizards were right, Saturn’s rings would have accreted into a big moon by now, but as Cuzzi well knows, destructive processes predominate in real planetary ring physics (10 July 2010). In fact, all the secular ringmasters of Cassini are baffled that the rings still exist! Not only that, comets are burning up as they pass the sun. Asteroid particles are colliding into planets and burning up in our atmosphere. Magnetic fields are decaying. The Second Law of Thermodynamics—one of the best-attested laws in all physics—guarantees that entropy will increase. Physical laws describe processes that destroy order and increase entropy; they do not create minds, butterflies, and whales.
Their choice of a secular materialistic worldview** forces these guys to believe that particles accrete into planetesimals, and planetesimals into planets, and planets into people. Real observations show the opposite: planetary bodies colliding, wearing down and destroying each other. The Eyewitness, the Creator of the universe, tells us that he made the Earth by his power, and fashioned man on it by His wisdom. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. It took the power of creative intelligence acting on matter to make us; we are not accidental by-products of natural forces. If that is a true foundation to build on, we should see evidence of it, and we do! We should see natural processes powerless to make the Earth and life, and we do. The science supports the Eyewitness account. That is Reality; not the contradictory visions of the self-appointed experts who must use divination tools to see the impossible become possible. Read Jeremiah 17:5-10.
To the data! Stop the storytelling. Get real, planetary scientists! Stop trusting in your divination tools, and in histories you never witnessed. Stop importing your atheism into your science. Stop playing games with your peer group that has expelled all who don’t think like you do. Until you cease these anti-scientific habits, we cannot even have a rational discussion about origins.
**To theistic evolutionists: it is no help to respond that “God used” natural processes like accretion and Darwinian evolution to create people. That is a self-contradictory argument. Natural processes do no such thing. If God guided natural processes, they are no longer unguided; they are no longer “natural.” It amounts to believing in multiple miracles to think that the secular astronomers’ toolkit of natural processes would make people. See the new anthology Theistic Evolution for detailed analysis of the theological, scientific and philosophical problems with the theistic evolution compromise position.