Jump to content


Mar 17 2011 - Exoplanets

No replies to this topic

#1 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 21 May 2011 - 10:07 AM

Listen here.

* Conventional Theory of Planet Formation Getting Hit Hard: The Answers magazine article on Exoplanets - Unpredictable Patterns is discussed on this Real Science Friday show by hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart:
- According to planetary evolution theory, a gas giant couldn't form close to its star but now such stars, called Hot Jupiters, are being readily found
- Because our solar system has planets that have nearly circular orbits evolutionists imagined that such systems form from rotating gas clouds which theoretically condense to produce planets with nearly circular orbits, except that many of the exoplanets have highly eccentric orbits
- While our own Venus has a retrograde (backward) rotation, for which evolutionists have to resort to catastrophism to explain (as with so many of the features of the solar system), one exoplanet discovered so far is believed to be orbiting backwards. Now, try to simulate that without violating the conservation of angular momentum!
- Bob, Fred, and Isaac Newton all reject the claim that our solar system formed from a condensing spinning gas cloud. And while Isaac's insights (he did, after all, first describe universal gravitation, explain color, invent calculus, and defend the supreme historical accuracy of Scripture) convinced Newton that a condensing gas cloud could not account for our planetary system. Now with the advantage of modern technology and recent scientific observations, Bob and Fred add to Isaac's insight that while the Sun should have the vast majority of the angular momentum of our solar system, all that rotational energy is actually in the wrong place, it's in the planets!

* Shock and Awe: As with the discovery of hot Jupiters and the sequencing of the chimp's Y chromosome, a thousand times over, naturalistic scientists are shocked by what they find, which repeating pattern, of discovery and shock, discovery and shock, discovery and shock, should enable an open-minded evolutionist to be willing to re-evaluate his strictly materialistic assumptions. "Rejection of a Creator is not a conclusion from science, but a bias brought to science," said Bob Enyart.

* Cosmological Principle: Big Bang cosmologists, not by evidence but by faith, claim that there is no center to the universe and no edges to the universe. However, secular scientists have discovered a quantized redshift to galaxies that indicates from earth a pattern in the distance to the galaxies of the universe, which are located in concentric spheres out from the Earth, rather than being randomly located.

* Anthropic Principles: Big Bang cosmologists claim that there is no problem with the many exquisitely and extraordinarily fine-tuned physical parameters of the universe such as the gravitational force constant, the electromagnetic force constant, the ratios of the numbers and mass of electrons to protons. Why is there no problem with the extraordinarily unlikely precise values of these ratios, including for example the 1 to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ratio of the essential electron to proton mass ratio? Because the anthropic principle claims that if all the many perfectly tuned ratios and constants of the universe weren't just that way, well then, we wouldn't be here to wonder about them. This is an example of the common "just-so" story telling and circular reasoning in pop science Big Bang and Darwinist circles today.

* The Big Clang: Hundreds of scientists, including many at world-class institutions, have publicly signed the Cosmology Statement as published in New Scientist to show the growing dissent in scientific circles regarding the increasingly awkward and superficially propped-up theory of the Big Bang.

Reply to this topic


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users