|
PANORAMA Evolution theory fails again Traditionally,
evolutionists have insisted that multiple star systems, such as Alpha Centauri,
which as three stars orbiting about each other, are not likely to form
planets. We observe that two out of
every three stars are members of a binary star system. That means that the number of double star
systems (binaries) is about the same as the number of single stars. Nevertheless, of the 161 planets thus far
discovered beyond the solar system, 30 are found orbiting stars that have at
least one partner. This is far more
than expected. Having
discovered that to be the case, astronomers are scrambling to fit the old
theories of solar system formation to fit the new facts. Alan P. Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,
D.C., has introduced a new computer simulation model that works as long as one
makes the reasonable assumption that if the gravity of the companion star is
weak. In that case, it will not disrupt
the disk of its partner so planets can still form in an evolutionary way. In some cases, he maintains, the presence of
the companion star can help the formation of planets. The result is that planet hunters are now encouraged to hunt for
planets in multiple-star systems, which are the rule in the galaxy. The two
leading theories right now for solar system formation are the accretion model
and the gravity-instability model. In
the accretion model, planets grow like snowballs in disks of gas and dust. The gas sticks to the dust, forming ice,
which collects more dust and ice as particles collide and stick together in
temperatures only ten degrees above absolute zero. Gradually these build up pebble-sized objects which grow to
boulder size, then house size, then comet size, etc. These slowly become planets. The
gravity-instability model, starts the same way but in it, the disk fragments
into pieces that can trigger the formation of large planets, such as Jupiter
and Saturn, without any gradual buildup.
This allegedly matches recent observations that support the sudden
creation of these planetary bodies. The
shortcomings of these two models are the same.
They both start with a fully formed disk, but before that, the collapse
model starts with a spinning sphere, which heats up as it collapses. The temperature soon rises above that which
allows the grains to stick together, especially when the central region, which
becomes the star, starts to shine. The
radiation from the star disrupts the cloud and expels the dust and gas into
interstellar space. Computationally
this happens before planets can fully form.
Thus special creation is still the best theory for the origin of
planetary systems. Do
cosmic Rays Affect the Weather? A prominent Canadian
scientist, Jan Veizer of the University of Ottawa, has defied the conventional
wisdom on global warming by proposing that high-energy cosmic rays, originating
from the expanse of space, are hitting earth’s atmosphere in ways that cause
the planet to cycle through warm and cold periods. Veizer’s politically loaded theory appeared in Geoscience
Canada last year and is generating debate on the causes of climate change
within the scientific community. That cosmic rays strike
earth has long been known. What is different
now is that more researchers are looking at their effects on the atmosphere,
particularly how they might influence weather.
In 2004, the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society
published a theory claiming cosmic rays “unambiguously” affect earth’s climate,
especially by forming clouds. Current
research at Florida Tech and the University of Florida is aimed at determining
whether cosmic rays trigger the release of lightning from charged thunderclouds. In explaining the mechanism
for a “celestial climate driver,” Professor Veizer says cosmic rays hit gas molecules
in the atmosphere, forming the nucleus of what becomes water vapor, like in a
cloud chamber which shows the path of radiation by the chain of droplets it
leaves behind. The resulting clouds
reflect more of the sun’s energy back into space and leave earth the cooler for
it. He notes the plausibility of the
sun’s increased intensity, rather than an increase in carbon dioxide, as the
primary cause for earth’s warming by one degree over the past century. Other scientists are taking issue with the
doomsday scenarios being proclaimed by many global-warming alarmists. Two Filipino scientists criticized Al Gore
for claiming global warming was the cause of the flooding of Manila’s harbor. They pointed out climate change would only
cause sea levels to rise by millimeters while Manila’s problems were being
caused by rapid subsidence of the land, a local problem created by extraction
of groundwater, not by greenhouse gases. Although Veizer advocates
cosmic ray flux variations as the cause of ice ages, there is no solid evidence
for more than one ice age, and that ice age probably lasted fewer than 700
years after the Flood. The interested
reader is referred to Michael Oard’s book, Frozen in Time: The wooly
mammoth, the ice age, and the Bible, ISBN 089051-418-6, Master Books, 2004. Spider silk stronger than evolution A team of scientists studying the spider’s thread have found that it is stronger than Kevlar, the strongest synthetic polymer, and has better torsional qualities that the space-age nickel-titanium shape-memory alloy Nitinol. They found that the spider’s thread is not only incredibly strong but also damps and resists torsional force after it is twisted, so that it quickly returns to the same position and the little spider does not spin around out of control. The team, led by Oliver Emile of the Laser Physics Laboratory at the University of Rennes in western France, concluded, “The spider has evolved a shape-memory material that needs no external stimulus for total recovery.” What an amazing thing. A lowly spider blindly evolving something that man with his intelligence and thousands of years of experience cannot duplicate. What did the spider do for all those “millions of years” while he was attempting to evolve the right thread? And how did that first spider that developed the capability to pass this amazing genetic knowledge along to his offspring? Too Much Deuterium Deuterium is a hydrogen atom with one neutron that evolutionists presume to have been created in the postulated big bang’s nuclear fireball. Because stars consume large amounts of deuterium and no known process creates significant amounts of it in stars, the amount of deuterium is expected to decrease over time. Deuterium concentrations in the Milky Way differ significantly from region to region. Theory predicted that it should be rather uniformly distributed throughout the Milky Way. Many assumed that the patchiness of deuterium was due to measurement errors. A new study has proven that assumption wrong; the patchiness is real. The study found that the amount of deuterium was inversely correlated with carbon dust. It is believed that deuterium sticks to the dust better than hydrogen with only a proton nucleus. The problem that the observations found is that the highest
concentration of deuterium in the Galaxy is 27 parts per million, which is
close to the amount theory predicts was produced in the big bang. If the measurements are confirmed then over
the past alleged 12 billion years, all the stars that now exist and have
existed in the Milky Though this is not a fatal flaw in the big bang theory, it is another nail in its coffin. |