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.