Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » Chronology and timeline of origins of the universe , life and biodiversity, the lack of explanatory power, open questions , and refuted claims of naturalism

Chronology and timeline of origins of the universe , life and biodiversity, the lack of explanatory power, open questions , and refuted claims of naturalism

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Admin


Admin
Chronology and timeline of origins of the universe , life and biodiversity,  the lack of explanatory power, open questions , and refuted claims of naturalism

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1922-chronology-and-timeline-of-origins-of-the-universe-life-and-biodiversity-the-lack-of-explanatory-power-open-questions-and-refuted-claims-of-naturalism

1.Astronomy and astrophysics

1.1 The Big Bang

Astrophysicists (such as Stephen Hawking) determined that the evident starting point just before the Big Bang involved something called a "singularity," which is: all the cosmos's potential mass (matter), energy, and dimensions --and time-- reduced down to an infinitely small point of zero volume. ---Thus, matter, 3-dimensional space, and time virtually did not exist before the Big Bang.

The expanding universe is an important discovery, because if we "reverse the film" of that expansion, then we arrive back at a starting-point for its beginning .

The universe cannot be the effect of absolutely nothing :

A. We have absolutely no reason to believe that Absolutely nothing ( AN )  has ever existed in the past or that it could ever be achieved.
B. AN has no creative powers and potentiality. This means AN cannot create or be the cause of anything, since its the absence of any thing.
C. AN cannot be Discriminatory - If something can come from AN then everything can.
D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. 0+0 always equals 0.
E. There is NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, which supports the claim that something can in fact come from AN. All the evidence points to the contrary view.
F. It would break the law of cause and effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality)
G. It would break the law of uniformity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)
H. AN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from AN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!!

Luke Barnes, a non-creationist astrophysicist who is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, University of Sydney, Australia, is scathing about Krauss and those who argue like him:

First and foremost, I’m getting really rather sick of cosmologists talking about universes being created out of nothing. Krauss repeatedly talked about universes coming out of nothing, particles coming out of nothing, different types of nothing, nothing being unstable. This is nonsense. The word nothing is often used loosely—I have nothing in my hand, there’s nothing in the fridge etc. But the proper definition of nothing is “not anything”. Nothing is not a type of something, not a kind of thing. It is the absence of anything.

Physicist and philosopher David Albert

The fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.—

Something cannot make itself (without violating the first principle of causality)

The Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause.
The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for millennia.

1.1a. Problems with the Big Bang theory

A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet ( http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html ) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004).

The dominance of the big bang theory rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’

The open letter includes statements such as:

   ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’
   ‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]
   ‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory .’

further problems 10 ):

Key contradicted predictions:

1) Lithium

Prediction: Any superhot explosion throughout the universe, like the Big Bang, would have generated a certain small amount of the light element lithium.

Evidence: Yet as astronomers have observed older and older stars, the amount of lithium observed has gotten less and less, and, in the oldest stars is less than one tenth of the predicted level. This, however, accords with non-Big-Bang predictions that explain the production of light elementsby stars and cosmic rays within the galaxies themselves.

2) Dark Matter

Prediction: The Big Bang theory requires the existence of dark matter—mysterious particles that have never been observed in the laboratory, despite huge experiments to find them.

Evidence: Multiple lines of evidence, especially observations of the motions of galaxies, show that this dark matter does not exist.

3) Too Large Structures

Prediction: In the Big Bang theory, the universe is supposed to start off completely smooth and homogenous.

Evidence: But as telescopes have peered farther into space, huger and huger structures of galaxies have been discovered, which are too large to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang.

4) Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) Asymmetries

Prediction: The inflation that was supposed to have occurred during the Big Bang should have smoothed out any large-scale asymmetries in the universe. The CBR should show be perfectly symmetrical.
Evidence: The CBR in fact shows strong evidence of asymmetries from one side of the sky to the other that, although small, could not have been produced by the ultra-symmetric “inflation” that hypothetically occurred in the Big Bang.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences17.html#wp1011757

1.2.The fundamental forces

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies tells us that, if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by 1 part in 10^16, no stars could have formed. Again, the ratio of the electromagnetic force-constant to the gravitational force-constant must be equally delicately balanced. Increase it by only one part in 10^40 and only small stars can exist; decrease it by the same amount and there will only be large stars. You must have both large and small stars in the universe: the large ones produce elements in their thermonuclear furnaces; and it is only the small ones that burn long enough to sustain a planet with life.

Faber, a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, was referring to the idea that there is something uncannily perfect about our universe. The laws of physics and the values of physical constants seem, as Goldilocks said, “just right.” If even one of a host of physical properties of the universe had been different, stars, planets, and galaxies would never have formed. Life would have been all but impossible.

To use Davies’ illustration, that is the kind of accuracy a marksman would need to hit a coin at the far side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away. If we find that difficult to imagine, a further illustration suggested by astrophysicist Hugh Ross may help. Cover America with coins in a column reaching to the moon (380,000 km or 236,000 miles away), then do the same for a billion other continents of the same size. Paint one coin red and put it somewhere in one of the billion piles. Blindfold a friend and ask her to pick it out. The odds are about 1 in 10^40 that she will.

Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.

1.2a. The Force of Gravity

It is now known that if the force of gravity were any weaker, stars would not have compacted tight enough together so that nuclear fusion would occur. Fusion is necessary to produce the heavier elements upon which life depends (such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen) ---and without fusion, there would only be hydrogen and helium in all the universe. On the other hand, if gravity were any stronger, stars would burn so hot that they would burn up in about one year or so (ref. G. Easterbrook, cited, p.26). As it is, the gravitational force is so finely tuned, that the average star is capable of burning in a stable fashion for about 80 billion years (ref. H. Ross, cited, p.60).

How finely tuned is gravity? -- Well, the strength of gravity could be at any one of 14 billion billion billion settings, but there is only one setting which is adequate (and optimal) for a universe with intelligent life to exist.

-- To illustrate: This is as if you had a measuring tape with one-inch sections stretched across the known universe, it would be 14 billion billion billion inches long, and only one or two of those inches in the middle is the optimal strength-setting for gravity. If you moved the strength-setting to the right or left just a couple of inches, then intelligent life could not exist (though bacterial life might survive with gravity stronger or weaker by one setting up or down).

THE PROBABILITY: Although the force of gravity could obviously have attained a large number of wrong magnitude-ranges, the chance of it being correct for intelligent life to exist, is one chance out of 14 billion billion billion. --Thus, we can conservatively say that it was about one chance out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (or 1 out of 10^21, or 1 out of a billion trillions) that the force of gravity might have randomly attained such an advantageous strength for the making of life-necessary elements in the stars.

1.2b. The Strong Nuclear Force

This is the force which binds the protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei.

If the strong nuclear force were very slightly weaker by just one part in 10,000 billion billion billion billion, then protons and neutrons would not stick together, and the only element possible in the universe, would be hydrogen only. There would be no stars, and no planets or life in the universe. (Ref., Dr. Robin Collins of Messiah College).

However, if the strong nuclear force were slightly too strong by the same fraction amount, the protons and neutrons would tend to stick together so much that there would basically only be heavy elements, but no hydrogen at all --If this were the case, then life would also not be possible, because hydrogen is a key element in water and in all life-chemistry.

THE PROBABILITY: If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker or stronger than it in fact is, then life would be impossible. Therefore, we can very conservatively say that it was about one chance out of 1,000,000,000,000 (1 out of a trillion) that the strong nuclear force might have randomly possessed the correct strength to make life possible in our cosmos.

1,2c. The Weak Nuclear Force

The weak nuclear force is what controls the rates at which radioactive elements decay. If this force were slightly stronger, the matter would decay into the heavy elements in a relatively short time. However, if it were significantly weaker, all matter would almost totally exist in the form of the lightest elements, especially hydrogen and helium ---there would be (for example) virtually no oxygen, carbon or nitrogen, which are essential for life.

In addition, although heavier elements necessary for life are formed inside giant stars, those elements can only escape the cores of those stars when they explode in supernova explosions, however, such supernova explosions can only occur because the weak nuclear force is exactly the right value. As Professor of astronomy, Paul Davies, describes this situation: "If the weak interaction were slightly weaker, the neutrinos would not be able to exert enough pressure on the outer envelope of the star to cause the supernova explosion. On the other hand, if it were slightly stronger, the neutrinos would be trapped inside the core, and rendered impotent" (My emphasis.) (ref. P.C.W. Davies, The Accidental Universe, London, 1982, p.68.)

THE PROBABILITY: Considering the fine-tuning of the weak nuclear force for both the rate of radioactive decay as well as the precise value required to allow supernova explosions, it is probably conservative to say that it was one chance out of 1000 that the weak nuclear force was at the right strength to permit these processes so that life would be possible.

1.2d. The Electromagnetic Force

If the electromagnetic force (exerted by electrons) were somewhat stronger, electrons would adhere to atoms so tightly that atoms would not share their electrons with each other ---and the sharing of electrons between atoms is what makes chemical bonding possible so that atoms can combine into molecules (e.g., water) so that life can exist. However, if the electromagnetic force were somewhat weaker, then atoms would not hang onto electrons enough to cause any bonding between atoms, and thus, compounds would never hold together. In addition, this fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force must be even more stringent if more and more elements are to be able to bond together into many different types of molecules.

THE PROBABILITY: Considering the range of electromagnetic force that might have occurred, it is reasonable to say that the probability of the electromagnetic force being balanced at the right level for many thousands of compounds to function for the making of chemical compounds necessary for life, is one chance out of 1000.

1.3.Origin of the chemical elements

The Elements

Everything we know of is a composite of a mere 109 building blocks that we call elements. Atoms of the 92 naturally occurring elements combine to form the myriad of materials that we see and use every day. An atom is a collection of particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons 5)

Approximately 73% of the mass of the visible universe is in the form of hydrogen. Helium makes up about 25% of the mass, and everything else represents only 2%. While the abundance of these more massive ("heavy", A > 4) elements seems quite low, it is important to remember that most of the atoms in our bodies and Earth are a part of this small portion of the matter of the universe. its argued that the low-mass elements, hydrogen and helium, were produced in the hot, dense conditions of the birth of the universe itself. The birth, life, and death of a star is described in terms of nuclear reactions. The chemical elements that make up the matter we observe throughout the universe were created in these reactions.

At first quarks and electrons had only a fleeting existence as a plasma because the annihilation removed them as fast as they were created. As the universe cooled, the quarks condensed into nucleons. This process was similar to the way steam condenses to liquid droplets as water vapor cools. Further expansion and cooling allowed the neutrons and some of the protons to fuse to helium nuclei. The 73% hydrogen and 25% helium abundances that exists throughout the universe today comes from that condensation period during the first three minutes. The 2% of nuclei more massive than helium present in the universe today were created later in stars. 6 )

During the process of stellar evolution nuclear fusion reactions take place within a star. These give rise to the formation of the chemical elements. 7)

It is thought that the early Universe consisted almost entirely of the element hydrogen, with a small amount of helium present too. Hydrogen, therefore, is thought to be the starting material from which all other elements have been built. This is consistent with the very high abundance of hydrogen in the solar abundance profile. The process may be thought of as a series of fusion reactions which weld together simple atomic nuclei to build increasing complex atomic nuclei. The manner in which this is done depends upon the internal temperature of the star and on its mass.

Early in star development hydrogen is utilised to manufacture the element helium. As the hydrogen in the star is used up, the star contracts and its temperature rises so that nuclear reactions can take place which permit the synthesis of the elements carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, from helium (see http://chemistry.ewu.edu/breneman/origin.htm). When the helium is almost completely consumed the carbon and oxygen can be transformed into elements with masses up to that of silicon. Increasing nuclear reactions, at higher temperatures lead to the formation of elements with masses up to that of iron (Fe). Beyond this point heavier elements cannot be formed by the process of nuclear fusion because the temperatures required are higher than those found in stars.

The anomalously low concentrations of the elements Li, Be and B indicate that they are by-passed in nuclear fusion reactions and their genesis seems to be explained by the partial decay of heavier nuclei of the elements carbon and oxygen.


Astronomers recognize two distinct episodes of element creation: primordial nucleosynthesis and stellar nucleosynthesis. Stellar nucleosynthesis also involves nucleosynthesis in supernovae. Primordial nucleosynthesis is the production of certain elements from the big bang model. The primordial elements include hydrogen, helium, and a small amount of lithium. All other elements (including some helium) are thought to have been produced in stars (normal stellar nucleosynthesis and supernovae), though a very small amount of some isotopes can be produced by spallation reactions in the interstellar medium. 10 )

THE ELEMENTAL FORCES

OF THE UNIVERSE

• Gravity. Gravity is the weakest force in the universe, yet it is in perfect balance. If gravity were any stronger, the smaller stars could not form; any weaker, the bigger stars could not form and no heavy elements could exist. Only red dwarf stars would exist, and these would radiate too feebly to support life on a planet.

• Proton to Neutron ratio. A proton is a subatomic particle found in the nucleus of all atoms. It has a positive electric charge that is equal to the negative charge of the electron. A neutron is a subatomic particle that has no electric charge. The mass of the neutron must exceed that of the proton in order for the stable elements to exist. But the neutron can only exceed the mass of the proton by an extremely small amount—an amount that is exactly twice the mass of the electron. That critical point of balance is only one part in a thousand.

If the ratio of the mass of the proton to neutron were to vary outside of that limit—chaos would result. If it were any less or more, atoms would fly apart or crush together—and everything would be destroyed. If the mass of the proton were only slightly larger, the added weight would cause it to quickly become unstable and decay into a neutron, positron, and neutrino. This would destroy hydrogen, the dominant element in the universe. A Master Designer planned that the proton’s mass would be slightly smaller than that of the neutron. Otherwise the universe would collapse.

• Photon to baryon ratio. A photon is the basic quantum, or unit, of light or other electro-magnetic radiant energy, when considered as a discrete particle. The baryon is a subatomic particle whose weight is equal to or greater than that of a proton. This photon-to-baryon ratio is crucial. If the ratio were much higher than it is, stars and galaxies could not hold together through gravitational attraction.

• Nuclear force. It is the nuclear force that holds the atoms together. If it were larger, there would be no hydrogen, only helium and the heavy elements. If it were smaller, there would only be hydrogen and no heavy elements. Without hydrogen and the heavy elements there could be no life. Without hydrogen, there could be no stable stars.

If the nuclear force were only one part in a hundred stronger or weaker than it now is, carbon could not exist, and carbon is the basic element in every living thing. A two-percent increase would eliminate protons.

• Electromagnetic force. If it were just a very small amount smaller or larger, no chemical bonds could form. A reduction in strength by a factor of only 1.6 would result in the rapid decay of protons into leptons. A threefold increase in the charge of the electron would render it impossible for any element, other than hydrogen, to exist. A threefold decrease would bring the destruction of all neutral atoms by even the lowest heat—such as is found in outer space.

• It would be impossible for evolution to produce the delicate balances of these forces. They were planned. In spite of the delicate internal ratio balance within each of the four forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong forces), those basic forces have strengths which differ so greatly from one another that the strongest is ten thousand billion billion billion billion times more powerful than the weakest of them. Yet the complicated math required for the Big Bang theory requires that all basic forces had to be the same in strength—during and just after that explosion occurred!

Evolutionists cannot claim that these delicate balances occurred as a result of "natural selection" or "mutations,"—for we are here dealing with the basic properties of matter; there is no room here for gradual "evolving." The proton-neutron mass ratio, for example, is what it has always been—what it was since the Beginning! It has not changed; it will not change. It began just right; there was no second chance! The same applies to all the other factors and balances in elemental matter and the physical principles governing them. 11)

Problems :

For a while, astronomers thought that nearly all elements originated from primordial nucleosynthesis, but it was largely the work of the late Sir Fred Hoyle in the 1950s that showed that this was not possible. The problem is that hydrogen fuses into helium at a much lower temperature than the temperatures required to synthesize helium into heavier elements. The fusion of heavier elements requires that helium first exist. In a big bang universe, by the time that the temperature had cooled sufficiently for helium to form, the window of opportunity for fusing heavier elements had closed. Only after stars had formed were temperatures recreated that could synthesize those heavier elements. 10)

Let’s suppose that the universe is 13.8 b.y. old. That is not enough time for stars containing heavy chemical elements to form and then transmit their light all the way to Earth. A big bang would have produced only hydrogen, helium, and lithium—the three lightest chemical elements. Light from some of the most distant stars and galaxies shows that they contain much heavier chemical elements, such as carbon, iron, and lead—elements that could not have been in the first generation of stars to form after the big bang. Evolutionists, therefore, believe that the hundred or so heavier chemical elements (97% of all chemical elements) were produced either deep inside stars or when some stars exploded as supernovas. Much later, a second generation of stars supposedly formed with the heavy elements from that exploded debris. 8 )

But when fusion creates elements that are heavier than iron, it requires an excess of neutrons. Therefore, astronomers assume that heavier atoms are minted in supernova explosions, where there is a ready supply of neutrons, although the specifics of how this happens are unknown. [See Eric Haseltine, “The Greatest Unanswered Questions of Physics,” Discover, February 2002, p. 40.]

Where the heaviest elements, such as uranium and lead, came from still remains something of a mystery. Ibid., p. 41.

1) http://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang
2) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/
3) http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathprfcosmos.html
4) (ref. G.Easterbrook, "Science Sees the Light", The New Republic, Oct.12, 1998, p.26).
5) http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/earth_origin_lecture.html
6) http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/10/0.html
7) http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/origins/earth/ch2_4.htm
8 )  http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ115.html
9 )  https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/solar-system/discussion-stellar-nucleosynthesis/
10 ) http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/problems-with-big-bang-expanding.html
11 ) http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/Evolution/02b.htm



Last edited by Admin on Tue May 09, 2017 12:47 pm; edited 7 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Stellar evolution and the problem of the ‘first’ stars

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1922-chronology-and-timeline-of-origins-of-the-universe-life-and-biodiversity-the-lack-of-explanatory-power-open-questions-and-refuted-claims-of-naturalism

Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, London, 1984, p. 184-185
The big bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet as can be seen below, an explosion merely throws matter apart, while the big bang has mysteriously produced the opposite effect–with matter clumping together in the form of galaxies.

Through a process not really understood, astronomers think that stars form from clouds of gas. Early in the universe, stars supposedly formed much more rapidly than they do today, though the reason for this isn’t understood either. Astronomers really don’t know how stars form, and there are physical reasons why star formation cannot easily happen. 1)
According to proponents of naturalism, the first chemical elements heavier than hydrogen, helium and lithium formed in nuclear reactions at the centres of the first stars. Later, when these stars exhausted their fuel of hydrogen and helium, they exploded as supernovas, throwing out the heavier elements. These elements, after being transformed in more generations of stars, eventually formed asteroids, moons and planets. But, how did those first stars of hydrogen and helium form? Star formation is perhaps the weakest link in stellar evolution theory and modern big bang cosmology. Especially problematic is the formation of the first stars—Population III stars as they are called.

There were no dust grains or heavy molecules in the primordial gas to assist with cloud condensation and cooling, and form the first stars. (Evolutionists now believe that molecular hydrogen may have played a role, in spite of the fact that molecular H almost certainly requires a surface—i.e. dust grains—to form.) Thus, the story of star formation in stellar evolution theory begins with a process that astronomers cannot observe operating in nature today. 2)

Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together. In fact, there is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium would be even less likely to clump together in outer space.

Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.

"Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.

"—*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.


Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).

THE OUTWARD RUSHING PARTICLES  

1 - There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.

2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.

3 - The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another.

4 - There is no way to slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.

5 - There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum [turning motion] would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.

6 - How could their atomic structures originate? Atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.

We will now assume that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically DID manage to move toward one another and (2) the particles COULD slow down and change directions.

THE PARTICLES CHANGED DIRECTIONS AND FORMED GAS CLOUDS

The theory—Gradually, the outward-racing particles are said to have begun circling one another, forming atoms. These atoms then changed direction further (this time toward one another) and formed gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

This aspect of the stellar evolution theory is as strange as that which preceded it.

1 - Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated. By 'gas,' we mean atoms of hydrogen and/or helium which are separated from one another. All gas in outer space has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum pressure bottle in any laboratory in the world! Gas in outer space is rarer (less dense; atoms more separated) than anything on earth.

2 - Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together. In fact, there is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium would be even less likely to clump together in outer space.

We will now ASSUME that the outward-moving, extremely fast, ever separating atoms (shot out by the Big Bang explosion) could slow, change direction, and form themselves into immense clouds.

GAS CLOUDS PUSH THEMSELVES INTO STARS

1 - Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.

2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.

3 - There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently known expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2½ billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss later), some of which are dated at 15 billion light-years, since they have a redshift of 400 percent. That would make them 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory. It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph. Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.

4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory.

5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of fast-moving matter. The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward without ever slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it to collide with, the supposed matter from the initial explosion would keep moving outward forever. This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned earlier.

6 - In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directions. First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it would have to begin moving in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum.

7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving forward.

8 - Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart, not condense together.

9 - There is not enough mass in the universe for the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory. The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This 'missing mass' problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts but also to the expanding universe theorists (*P.V. Rizzo, 'Review of Mysteries of the Universe,' Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150). Astronomers are agreed on the existence of this problem. *Hoyle, for example, says that without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.

'Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.'—*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.

10 - Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit’s research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another. Think about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?

This point is so important (for it devastates the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research should be mentioned in more detail:

*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).

11 - *Novotny’s research findings are also very important. *Novotny, in a book published by Oxford University, discusses the problem of 'gaseous dispersion.' It is a physical law that gas in a vacuum expands instead of contracts; therefore it cannot form itself into stars, planets, etc. That which cannot happen, cannot happen given any amount of time.

We will now ASSUME that the clouds formed themselves into what evolutionists call proto-stars, or first-generation stars.

STARS EXPLODE AND SUPERNOVAS PRODUCE HEAVY ELEMENTS

The problem—The Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium. Somehow, the 90 heavier (post-helium) elements had to be made. The theorists had to figure out a way to account for their existence.

The theory—The first stars, which were formed, were so-called 'first-generation stars' (also called 'population III stars'). They contained only lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of these stars repeatedly exploded. Billions upon billions of stars kept exploding, for billions of years. Gradually, these explosions are said to have produced all our heavier elements.

This concept is as wild as those preceding it.

1 - Another imaginative necessity. Like all the other aspects of this theory, this one is included in order to somehow get the heavier (post-helium) elements into the universe. The evolutionists admit that the Big Bang would only have produced hydrogen and helium.

2 - The nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change itself into any of the heavier elements. This is an extremely important point, and is called the 'helium mass 4 gap' (that is, there is a gap immediately after helium 4). Therefore exploding stars could not produce the heavier elements. (Some scientists speculate that a little might be produced, but even that would not be enough to supply all the heavier elements now in our universe.) Among nuclides that can actually be formed, gaps exists at mass 5 and 8. Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5. This first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium. Even if it spanned this gap, it would be stopped again at mass 8. Hydrogen bomb explosions produce deuterum (hydrogen 2), which, in turn, forms helium 4. In theory, the hydrogen bomb chain reaction of nuclear changes could continue changing into ever heavier elements until it reached uranium;—but the process is stopped at the gap at mass 5. If it were not for that gap, our sun would be radiating uranium toward us!

'In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. This basic objection to Gamow’s theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea.'—*William A. Fowler, California Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90.

Clarification: If you will look at any standard table of the elements, you will find that the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.008. (Deuterum is a form of hydrogen with a weight of 2.016.) Next comes helium (4.003), followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811), etc. Gaps in atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.

But cannot hydrogen explosions cross those gaps? No. Nuclear fision (a nuclear bomb or reactor) splits (unevenly halves) uranium into barium and technetium. Nuclear fusion (a hydrogen bomb) combines (doubles) hydrogen into deuterum (helium 2), which then doubles into helium 4—and stops there. So a hydrogen explosion (even in a star) does not go across the mass 5 gap.

We will now ASSUME that hydrogen and helium explosions could go across the gaps at mass 5 and 8:

3 - There has not been enough theoretical time to produce all the needed heavier elements that now exist. We know from spectrographs that heavier elements are found all over the universe. The first stars are said to have formed about 250 million years after the initial Big Bang explosion. (No one ever dates the Big Bang over 20 billion years ago, and the date has recently been lowered to 15 billions years ago.) At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into 'first-generation' stars, most of them are theorized to have exploded and then, 250 million years later, reformed into 'second-generation' stars. These are said to have exploded into 'third-generation' stars. Our sun is supposed to be a second- or third-generation star.

4 - There are no population III stars (also called first-generation stars) in the sky. According to the theory, there should be 'population III' stars, containing only hydrogen and helium, many of which exploded and made 'population II' (second-generation stars), but there are only population I and II stars (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 35-36).

5 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. The theory requires that countless billions of stars exploded. How could haphazard explosions result in the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars, binary stars, galaxies, and star clusters? Within each galactic system, hundreds of billions of stars are involved in these interrelated orbits. Were these careful balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers—or they would fly apart! Over half of all the stars in the sky are in binary systems, with two or more stars circling one another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result of explosions? Because there are no 'first generation' ('Population I') stars, the Big Bang theory requires that every star exploded at least one or two times. But random explosions never produce orbits.

6 - There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the needed heavier elements. There are 81 stable elements and 90 natural elements. Each one has unusual properties and intricate orbits. When a star explodes, it is called a nova. When a large star explodes, it becomes extremely bright for a few weeks or months and is called a supernova. It is said that only the explosions of supernovas could produce much of the needed heavier elements, yet there have been relatively few such explosions.

7 - Throughout all recorded history, there have been relatively few supernova explosions. If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now. Research astronomers tell us that one or two supernova explosions are seen every century, and only 16 have exploded in our galaxy in the past 2,000 years. Past civilizations carefully recorded each one. The Chinese observed one, in A.D. 185, and another in A.D. 1006. The one in 1054 produced the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks. It was recorded both in Europe and the Far East. Johannes Kepler wrote a book about the next one, in 1604. The next bright one was 1918 in Aquila, and the latest in the Veil Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud on February 24, 1987.

'Supernovae are quite different . . and astronomers are eager to study their spectra in detail. The main difficulty is their rarity. About 1 per 650 years is the average for any one galaxy . . The 1885 supernova of Andromeda was the closest to us in the last 350 years.'—*Isaac Asimov, New Guide to Science (1984), p. 48.

8 - Why did the stellar explosions mysteriously stop? The theory required that all the stars exploded, often. The observable facts are that, throughout recorded history, stars only rarely explode. In order to explain this, evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago, the explosions suddenly stopped. Very convenient. When the theory was formulated in the 1940s, through telescopes astronomers could see stars whose light left them 5 billion light-years ago. But today, we can see stars that are 15 billion light-years away. Why are we not seeing massive numbers of stellar explosions far out in space? The stars are doing just fine; it is the theory which is wrong.

9 - The most distant stars, which are said to date nearly to the time of the Big Bang explosion, are not exploding,—and yet they contain heavier elements. We can now see out in space to nearly the beginning of the Big Bang time. Because of the Hubble telescope, we can now see almost as far out in space as the beginning of the evolutionists’ theoretical time. But, as with nearby stars, the farthest ones have heavier elements (are 'second-generation'), and they are not exploding any more frequently than are the nearby ones.

10 - Supernovas do not throw off enough matter to make additional stars. There are not many stellar explosions and most of them are small-star (nova) explosions. Yet novas cast off very little matter. A small-star explosion only loses a hundred-thousandth of its matter; a supernova explosion loses about 10 percent; yet even that amount is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets, interstellar gas, and stars. So supernovas—Gamow’s fuel source for nearly all the elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently and produce far too small an amount of heavy elements—to produce the vast amount that exists in the universe.

11 - Only hydrogen and helium have been found in the outflowing gas from supernova explosions. The theory requires lots of supernova explosions in order to produce heavy elements. But there are not enough supernovas,—and research indicates that they do not produce heavy elements! All that was needed was to turn a spectroscope toward an exploded supernova and analyze the elements in the outflowing gas from the former star. *K. Davidson did that in 1982, and found that the Crab nebula (resulting from an A.D. 1054 supernova) only has hydrogen and helium. This means that, regardless of the temperature of the explosion, the helium mass 4 gap was never bridged. (It had been theorized that a supernova would generate temperatures high enough to bridge the gap. But the gap at mass 4 and 8 prevented it from occurring.)

12 - An explosion of a star would not produce another star. It has been theorized that supernova explosions would cause nearby gas to compress and form itself into new stars. But if a star exploded, it would only shoot outward and any gas encountered would be pushed along with it.

STARS CANNOT EXPLODE AND  PRODUCE HEAVY ELEMENTS THROUGH SUPERNOVAS

The problem—The Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium. Somehow, the 90 heavier (post-helium) elements had to be made. The theorists had to figure out a way to account for their existence.

There has not been enough theoretical time to produce all the needed heavier elements that now exist. We know from spectrographs that heavier elements are found all over the universe. The first stars are said to have formed about 250 million years after the initial Big Bang explosion. (No one ever dates the Big Bang over 20 billion years ago, and the date has recently been lowered to 15 billions years ago.) At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into "first-generation" stars, most of them are theorized to have exploded and then, 250 million years later, reformed into "second-generation" stars. These are said to have exploded into "third-generation" stars. Our sun is supposed to be a second- or third-generation star.

Why did the stellar explosions mysteriously stop? The theory required that all the stars exploded, often. The observable facts are that, throughout recorded history, stars only rarely explode. In order to explain this, evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago, the explosions suddenly stopped. Very convenient. When the theory was formulated in the 1940s, through telescopes astronomers could see stars whose light left them 5 billion light-years ago. But today, we can see stars that are 15 billion light-years away. Why are we not seeing massive numbers of stellar explosions far out in space? The stars are doing just fine; it is the theory which is wrong.

The most distant stars, which are said to date nearly to the time of the Big Bang explosion, are not exploding,—and yet they contain heavier elements. We can now see out in space to nearly the beginning of Big Bang time. Because of the Hubble telescope, we can now see almost as far out in space as the beginning of the evolutionists’ theoretical time. But, as with nearby stars, the farthest ones have heavier elements (are "second-generation"), and they are not exploding any more frequently than are the nearby ones.

There are no population III stars (also called first-generation stars) in the sky. According to the theory, there should be "population III" stars, containing only hydrogen and helium, many of which exploded and made "population II" (second-generation stars), but there are only population I and II stars

(*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 35-36).


‘The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a globally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind.’ No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing. Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise. How then did the lumps get there? No one can say."

*Ben Patrusky, "Why is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?" Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.


The usual shape of the galaxies is that of a saucer with a central sphere. This shape defies explanation by the laws of physics. Island universes should not have their highly coordinated, inter-orbiting structure arrangement. The stars should all fly apart. Each galaxy is a carefully organized city in the sky. In an attempt to explain this pattern, theorists declare that there must be "dark matter" pressing the galaxies together! But there is no evidence that such fanciful stuff exists. It takes a lot of imagination to hold evolutionary theory together. The theorists declare that "97% of the universe is missing." They are speaking of the dark matter ("exotic matter") which they cannot find

(*Marcia Bartusiak, "Missing: 97% of the Universe," Science Digest, 91:51, December 1983).

NATURALISTIC HYPOTHESES FAIL TO EXPLAIN CONVINCINGLY THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

The Nebular Hypothesis (also called the Planetesimal Theory) says that, as the gas swirled around, eddies of gas caused the sun and planets. All seven theories require circling gas which contracts into the sun. We have already disproved the basics underlying this concept. Many say that material from the sun made the planets and moons. But the elemental composition of each of the planets is different from the sun and from one another. One could not come from the other. In addition, the sun would have to rotate extremely fast to hurl off planets and moons, yet it rotates very slowly.

Every moon is located at the precise distance to keep it from flying into or away from its planet. How could all this originate from a single explosion or collision? None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.

FACTS ABOUT PLANETS AND MOONS

There is no known mechanical process that can accomplish a transfer of angular (turning, spinning, orbiting) momentum from the sun to its planets.

A full 99.5 percent of all the angular (rotational) momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets,—yet a staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass is located in our sun! To an astrophysicist, this is both astounding and unexplainable. (Their theory is that the sun was rotating so fast, it hurled out the planets.)

Our sun is rotating rather slowly, but the planets are rotating far too fast in comparison with the sun. In addition, they are orbiting the sun far faster than the sun is itself turning. But if the planets did not orbit so fast, they would hurtle into the sun; and if the sun did not rotate slowly, it would fling its mass outward into space.

According to *David Layzer of Harvard, in order for the sun to originally have been part of the same mass as the planets and moons, it would have to rotate ten-million times faster. *Layzer adds, if the sun lost so much of its momentum, why did the planets not lose theirs?


The carbon energy level required to produce the abundant amounts of carbon life requires is statistically improbable, yet it occurs. Hoyle, an atheist, was so astounded by this that he later wrote:

Would you not say to yourself,...Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule....A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question

Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science 45 (November 1981): 8–12. 4)


Evolution or Creation?: A Comparison of the Arguments, By Albert DeBenedictis , page 33



http://www.daylightorigins.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/the-big-bang-and-stellar-evolution.pdf

1 - Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself
together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog,  whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but there is no way for
nature to produce one. Getting it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But
before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star— or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.

2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.

3 - There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently known expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years
ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2½ billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the discovery of supposedly faraway quasars
(which we will discuss later), some of which are dated at 15 billion lightyears, since they have a redshift of 400 percent. That would make them 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory. It
doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph. Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.

4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory.

5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of fast-moving matter. The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward without ever
slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it to collide with, the supposed matter from the initial explosion would keep moving outward forever. This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned earlier.

6 - In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directions. First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it would have to begin moving in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum.

7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving forward.

8 - Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart, not condense together.

List of Problems with Solar System Formation 5

Discoveries that Falsify the Nebular Hypothesis: Taken together, the impressive scientific discoveries that completely falsify the nebular hypothesis of solar system formation include these:
exoplanets contradict the predictions of the nebular hypothesis theory
- our Sun is missing nearly 100% of its predicted spin 
- our Sun's rotation is seven degrees off the ecliptic
planets would not form because as admitted in Nature in 2013, "according to standard theory, dust grains orbiting newborn stars should spiral into those stars rather than accrete to form planets”
- even when dust grains and small rocks collide gently they break apart instead of accreting to form planetesimals
- even if the laws of physics enabled planet formation 4.5 billion year is far too little time to build large planets
- the missing predicted uniform distribution pattern of solar system isotopes
- the missing expected uniform distribution of Earth's radioactivity
- the contrary-to-expectations fine tuning of the solar system
- the many contrary-to-expectations transient events in the solar system
- that proponents are catastrophists trying to prop up the theory by claiming ubiquitous planetary catastrophism
star formation has seemingly intractable physics problems (consider the Philae landing)
- contrary to an Oort or Kuiper origin, comets contain earth-like minerals and rounded boulders    
- short-period comets still exist even though they have lifespans of only thousands of years
- the 1,346 trans-Neptunian objects with known orbits reach perihelion at the ecliptic
- the MNRAS published analysis showing simulations can never demonstrate both planet and asteroid formation   
Mercury has greater density than can be accounted for by evolutionary accretion
- NASA's 45-year lunar dust data collector shows that miles, not inches, should have accumulated in billions of years
- the rocky planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars would rotate far more slowly if accreted from a condensing nebula
- the origin of the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn has no "satysfying explanation" per the journal Science in 2002
- that Uranus rotates perpendicularly and Venus rotates backwards.

"What are the early stages in the formation of a star? What determines whether a cloud of star-forming matter will evolve into one, two or several stars? Because clouds of gas, dust and debris largely obscure all but the initial and final stages of the birth of a star, these questions have so far not been answered by direct observation....it has been impossible to date to view the cloud as it collapses through this range of densities. Consequently stars cannot be observed as they form."7

Are gas clouds, in the act of collapsing into stars, actually observed in these galaxies? Well no! Intense emissions signal to astronomers active young new stars, so accordingly they report star-forming regions. But the very luminous emissions from hot hydrogen gas do not tell you how the stars were formed.

Solar system formation by accretion has no observational evidence 9

Experiments have not demonstrated that accretion occurs. God created heavenly bodies by His spoken word (Ps. 33:6), not a process—rapid or not—conforming to post-creation scientific laws. Experimental challenges to accretion theory are presented, followed by discussion of the lack of astronomical observations for it.

1) https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/solar-system/discussion-stellar-nucleosynthesis/
2) http://creation.com/stellar-evolution-and-the-problem-of-the-first-stars
3) http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/Evolution/02a.htm
4) http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuned-stellar-nucleosynthesis-of-carbon-and-oxygen
5) http://kgov.com/list-of-solar-system-formation-problems
6) https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55861.0
7) http://www.ldolphin.org/stars.html
8 ) http://creation.com/stars-dont-form-naturally
9) http://creation.com/accretion-hypothesis

further readings :

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2002ESASP.485...57W
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec13.html
http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/stars/stars.asp



Last edited by Admin on Sun May 21, 2017 8:36 pm; edited 21 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

3 Formation and evolution of the Solar System on Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:55 am

Admin


Admin
Formation and evolution of the Solar System

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1922-chronology-and-timeline-of-origins-of-the-universe-life-and-biodiversity-the-lack-of-explanatory-power-open-questions-and-refuted-claims-of-naturalism#3217

There are seven theories about the origin of the Solar System

1 - The Nebular Hypothesis (also called the Planetesimal Theory) says that, as the gas swirled around, eddies of gas caused the sun and planets. All seven theories require circling gas which contracts into the sun. Many say that material from the sun made the planets and moons. But the elemental composition of each of the planets is different from the sun and from one another. One could not come from the other. In addition, the sun would have to rotate extremely fast to hurl off planets and moons, yet it rotates very slowly.

“We have now to take account of variations in the form and arrangement of the parts of the ring, as well as its motion as a whole, and we have as yet no security that these variations may not accumulate till the ring entirely loses its original form, and collapses into one or more satellites, circulating around Saturn. In fact such a result is one of the leading doctrines of the ‘nebular theory’ of the formation of planetary systems …

evidence indicates that the solar system and the earth are too young for the nebular hypothesis to have had the billions of years it requires. The moon is receding slowly from the earth, a process called lunar recession; the moon is at most 1.3 Ga old, or it would have left earth orbit altogether.58 Even more severe chronological constraints exist. Asteroids are presumed to be primordial material which did not form a planet, implying that asteroidal fragments are as old as the solar system. But the existence of asteroidal ‘moons’ suggests an upper limit on their age as low as 100,000 years, less than one ten-thousandth their conventional age.59

No matter the age of the moon, the nebular hypothesis cannot account for its existence, and

“ … astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from.This is particularly embarrassing, because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme.3)

One major problem can be shown by accomplished skaters spinning on ice. As skaters pull their arms in, they spin faster. This effect is due to what physicists call the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Angular momentum = mass x velocity x distance from the centre of mass, and always stays constant in an isolated system. When the skaters pull their arms in, the distance from the centre decreases, so they spin faster or else angular momentum would not stay constant. In the formation of our sun from a nebula in space, the same effect would have occurred as the gases allegedly contracted into the centre to form the sun. This would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly. Actually, our sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the sun. In fact, although the sun has over 99% of the mass of the solar system, it has only 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis. Evolutionists have tried to solve this problem, but a well-known solar-system scientist, Dr Stuart Ross Taylor, has said in a recent book, ‘The ultimate origin of the solar system’s angular momentum remains obscure. 4)



2 - The Fision Theory says that our sun burst and sent out the planets and moons. But they would fly outward forever; they would not stop and begin circling the sun or one another.

3 - The Capture Theory says our planets and moons were wandering around and were captured by our sun. But they would then crash into the sun; they would not circle it or one another. We never see planets or moons flying by us today, yet we now know of at least 60 moons in our solar system.

4 - The Accretion Theory says that small chunks of material gradually got together and formed our planet. Then more chunks formed our moon, which began circling us. This idea is pretty far out also. The planets, moons, and asteroids are all in carefully arranged orbits. The meteors fly fast in linear motion. No chunks are just floating around, and those chunks would not stick together anyway.

Nickel-iron alloy condensate grains were grown to submicron size at 10-4 atmospheres, taken as the pressure in the pre-solar nebula, in an enclosed environment without turbulence.1 What do these conditions have to do with actual accretion? The author’s conclusion was not much: “the direct growth from the gas of large grains or droplets is very difficult, under any conditions familiar to us.”  2)

5 - The Planetary Collision Theory says our world collided with a small planet, producing our moon. But such an impact would totally destroy our planet. How could such an impact produce a circling moon? This would have had to be repeated for all 60 moons in our solar system. The theory would require thousands of planets passing through our solar system, for enough direct hits to produce all our moons. Why are not such flybys occurring today?

6 - The Stellar Collision Theory says that two stars collided, and produced our planets and moons. But they would not then pause and circle one of the suns which was waiting placidly to receive them. They would either be hurled away from the sun or crash back into it.

7 - The Gas Cloud Theory says gas clouds were pulled in from outer space by our sun’s gravity; then they paused, formed themselves into planets and moons, and began circling one another. But gas does not clump, and linear motion toward the sun would not change into circular motion around it.

These solar system theories do not explain where stars, planets, and moons originated or how they arrived at their present, intricate pattern. Such precision could not come about by chance.

Every moon is located at the precise distance to keep it from flying into or away from its planet. How could all this originate from a single explosion or collision? None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.


Our sun is rotating rather slowly, but the planets are rotating far too fast in comparison with the sun. In addition, they are orbiting the sun far faster than the sun is itself turning. But if the planets did not orbit so fast, they would hurtle into the sun; and if the sun did not rotate slowly, it would fling its mass outward into space.

According to *David Layzer of Harvard, in order for the sun to originally have been part of the same mass as the planets and moons, it would have to rotate ten-million times faster. *Layzer adds, if the sun lost so much of its momentum, why did the planets not lose theirs?

2 - The orbits of Mercury, Pluto, asteroids, and comets each have an extreme inclination from the plane of the sun’s ecliptic. The solar origin theories cannot explain this.

3 - Both Uranus and Venus rotate backward, compared to all the other planets. The other seven rotate forward, in relation to their orbit around the sun. Uranus rotates at a 98o angle from its orbital plane. It is literally rolling along!

4 - One-third of the 60 moons have retrograde (backward) motion, opposite (!) to the rotational direction of their planets. The official evolutionists’ theory for how these backward-rotating moons formed is this: The planet hurled them out, then drew them back, and they began orbiting it. Evolutionists try to explain everything in our world and the universe as a bunch of fortunate accidents.

5 - The continued existence of these moons is unexplainable. For example, Triton, the inner of Neptune’s moons, with a diameter of 3000 miles [4827 km], is nearly twice the mass of our moon, yet revolves backward every six days, has a nearly circular orbit,—and is only 220,000 miles [353,980 km] from its planet! It should fall into its planet any day now, but it does not do so.

6 - There are such striking differences between the various planets and moons, that they could not have originated from the same source.

"The solar system used to be a simple place, before any spacecraft ventured forth from the Earth . . But 30 years of planetary exploration have replaced the simple picture with a far more complex image. ‘The most striking outcome of planetary exploration is the diversity of the planets,’ says planetary physicist David Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology. Ross Taylor of the Australian National University agrees: ‘If you look at all the planets and the 60 or so satellites [moons], it’s very hard to find two that are the same.’ "—*Richard A. Kerr, "The Solar System’s New Diversity," Science 265, September 2, 1994, p. 1360.

7 - Many say that material from the sun made the planets and moons. But the ratio of elements in the sun is far different than that found in the planets and moons. One could not come from the other. How then could the earth and other planets be torn out of the sun (planetesimal theory) or come from the same gas cloud that produced the sun (nebular hypothesis)

"We see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them. Its composition would be hopelessly wrong."—*Fred Hoyle, "Where the Earth Came from," Harper’s, March 1951, p. 65.

8 - How could the delicate rings of Saturn have been formed from gas, collisions, or some other chance occurrence? (Those rings include ammonia, which should rather quickly vaporize off into space.)

9 - Saturn has 17 moons, yet none of them ever collide with the rings. The farthest one out is Phoebe, which revolves in a motion opposite to Saturn and its rings. How could that happen?

10 - Nearly all of Saturn’s moons are different from one another in the extreme. Titan, alone, has a thick atmosphere (thicker than ours). Enceladus has an extremely smooth surface, whereas the other moons are generally much rougher. Hyperion is the least spherical and shaped like a potato. The surface of Iapetus is five times darker on one side than on the other. One moon is only 48,000 miles [77,232 km] above Saturn’s cloud cover! There are three co-orbital moon sets; that is, each set shares the same orbit and chases its one or two companions around Saturn endlessly. Some of Saturn’s moons travel clockwise, and others counterclockwise. How could all those moons originate by chance?

11 - As noted earlier, the chemical makeup of our moon is distinctly different than that of earth. The theorists cannot explain this.

"To the surprise of scientists [after the Apollo moon landings], the chemical makeup of the moon rocks is distinctly different from that of rocks on Earth. This difference implies that the moon formed under different conditions. Prof [A.G.W.] Cameron explains, and means that any theory on the origin of the planets now will have to create the moon and the earth in different ways."—*J.E. Bishop, "New Theories of Creation," Science Digest 72, October 1972, p. 42.

12 - Our moon is larger in relation to the planet it orbits than is any other moon in our solar system. Go out at night a look at it. To have such a huge body circling so close to us—without falling into the earth—is simply astounding. Scientists cannot keep their satellites orbiting the earth without occasional adjustments. Lacking such adjustments, the orbits decay and the satellites eventually fall and crash. Yet, century after century, our moon maintains an exquisitely perfect orbit around the earth.


Fine tuning of the sun, and the solar system

Life must also have the right type of star. Stars act as energy sources for life. Most stars are too large, too bright or too unstable to support life. The size and age of the sun enhances the earth’s hospitality. If the earth were moved 1% closer to the sun, bodies of water would vaporize, and life would not be possible. If the earth were as much as 2% farther from the sun, its waters would freeze. Earth has a nearly circular orbit, which ensures a nearly constant distance from the sun -- ensuring that seasonal changes are not too severe. 5)



http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/Evolution/02b.htm

2) http://creation.com/accretion-hypothesis#txtRef2
3) http://creation.com/accretion-hypothesis#txtRef2
4) http://creation.com/the-sun-our-special-star
5) http://www.allaboutscience.org/cosmic-fine-tuning-and-life-faq.htm

further readings:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/our-new-improved-solar-system/



Last edited by Admin on Sat Jan 24, 2015 1:47 pm; edited 2 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
THE ORIGIN OF THE PLANETARY SYSTEM AND THE EARTH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

Earth formed around 4.54 billion (4.54×109) years ago by accretion from the solar nebula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability

An absolute requirement for life is an energy source, and the notion of planetary habitability implies that many other geophysical, geochemical, and astrophysical criteria must be met before an astronomical body can support life. In its astrobiology roadmap, NASA has defined the principal habitability criteria as "extended regions of liquid water, conditions favourable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism."

Earth’s Chlorine Abundance Fine-Tuned for Life 1)

sodium chloride, otherwise known as table salt. All known organisms need such salt in small quantities. It is crucial for metabolism, for maintaining essential fluid and pH balances, and for electrical signaling in nervous systems. Too much or too little salt in the diet causes muscle cramps, dizziness, electrolyte disturbances, neurological malfunctions, and/or death.

Chlorine is just one of Earth’s exceptional elemental abundances. Twenty must exist at fine-tuned abundance levels for advanced life to be possible. An additional twelve must have fine-tuned abundance levels for global civilization to be possible. See table.

Earth's Stabilizing Moon May Be Unique Within Universe 2)

The moon has long been recognized as a significant stabilizer of Earth's orbital axis. Without it, astronomers have predicted that Earth's tilt could vary as much as 85 degrees. In such a scenario, the sun would swing from being directly over the equator to directly over the poles over the course of a few million years, a change which could result in dramatic climatic shifts.

How the Solar System didn’t form

http://www.nature.com.secure.sci-hub.cc/nature/journal/v528/n7581/full/nature16322.html

Standard planet-formation models have been unable to reconstruct the distributions of the Solar System’s small, rocky planets and asteroids in the same simulation. A new analysis suggests that it cannot be done.

Isidoro et al. do not offer a final model of terrestrial-planet formation. But their work convincingly demonstrates that standard models cannot satisfy major constraints on the process, the toughest of which is set by asteroids.
Even if their simulations were refined, it is unlikely that this general result would change. Planetary scientists should now focus on whether the intricate structure of the inner Solar System can be adequately explained by
non-standard accretion models, or whether it simply represents the heritage of a preceding phase of extensive giant-planet migration 3


Mercury has the highest density of all the known planets (other than Earth). Mercury is so dense that it’s thought to have an iron core occupying some 75% of its diameter.1 This extraordinary density has generated much turmoil and confusion in evolutionary astronomy. Evolutionists mostly agree on models of planetary formation … but their models say Mercury can’t be anywhere near as dense as it actually is.
After decades of struggle, most astrophysicists today have given up and admitted that Mercury’s high density cannot be accommodated within slow-and-gradual-development models. 4


1. http://www.reasons.org/articles/earth%E2%80%99s-chlorine-abundance-fine-tuned-for-life
2. http://www.space.com/12464-earth-moon-unique-solar-system-universe.html
3. http://www.nature.com.secure.sci-hub.cc/nature/journal/v528/n7581/full/nature16322.html
4. http://creation.com/mercury-the-tiny-planet-that-causes-big-problems-for-evolution



Last edited by Admin on Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:07 am; edited 4 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
http://www.uncommondescent.com/cosmology/questions-about-the-accretion-model-of-planet-formation/

http://www.nature.com/news/astronomy-planets-in-chaos-1.15480
“The discovery of thousands of star systems wildly different from our own has demolished ideas about how planets form. Astronomers are searching for a whole new theory.”
“Astronomers know that both stars and planets form from interstellar gas clouds — but the details are still murky.”

I would humbly suggest that if the details are still murky, maybe claiming to “know” this is a bit premature.
“Not so long ago — as recently as the mid-1990s, in fact — there was a theory so beautiful that astronomers thought it simply had to be true. They gave it a rather pedestrian name: the core-accretion theory. …. [that was then, this is now]
“The findings have triggered controversy and confusion, as astronomers struggle to work out what the old theory was missing. They are trying ideas, but are still far from sure how the pieces fit together. The field in its current state “doesn’t make much sense”, says Norm Murray of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics in Toronto. “It’s impossible right now to account for everything,” agrees Kevin Schlaufman, an astrophysicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge. Until researchers reach a new consensus, they will not be able to understand how our own Solar System fits into the grand scheme of things, let alone predict what else might exist.”

Such models are appealing, but the concept of migration, especially of the smaller planets, gives some researchers pause — if only because no one has ever seen it happening. The necessary observations may not be possible: stars young enough to have planets migrating through protoplanetary disks are still surrounded by dust, and their light flickers, making it extremely unlikely that current methods will be able to pick out the dimming caused by a transiting planet. The theory is not settled, either. Modellers have found it hard to explain why migrating planets, big or small, would stop in the orbits that astronomers have observed. In simulations, says Winn, they don’t: “the planets plop right down on the star”.
Perhaps the biggest question is why our Solar System is so different.
….
And from 2017, NASA’s planned Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) will look for planetary transits across all the bright stars in the sky. The wider range of possible exoplanet candidates makes it more likely that astronomers will spot a Solar System like ours — if one exists.
Meanwhile, researchers continue to nurture their mess of models, which have grown almost as exotic and plentiful as the planets they seek to explain. And if the current theories are disjointed, ad hoc and no longer beautiful, that is often how science proceeds, notes Murray. “Life,” he says, “is like that.”

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum