Glo die Bybel

Johannes 17:17 ...U Woord is die waarheid.

Sindikasie

Glo die Bybel Glo die Bybel
Ons sonnestelsel is geskape PDF Afdruk E-pos
Geskryf deur Daniel Louw   
Sondag, 26 Mei 2013 20:00

Ek het onlangs die die DVD “Our Created Solar System, What you aren’t being told about Astronomy, Volume 1” gekyk. Spike Psarris is die aanbieder wat vir baie jare in die VSA se militêre ruimteprogram gewerk het. Hy het die ruimteprogram betree as ‘n ateïs en evolusionis en het dit verlaat as ‘n skeppingsleerder/kreasionis en Christen.

Hierdie DVD wys hoedat feitlik nie een van ons sonnestelsel se planete en hulle mane deur die oerknalhipotese verklaar kan word nie. Volgens die oerknal moet planete soos Uranus en Neptunes nie eers bestaan nie. Dit is ook opvallend dat indien die teorie iets nie kan verklaar nie, dan word daar van spesiale pleidooi gebruik gemaak deur die reuse impak teorie (of “giant impact theory”) in te span om te help. Dit is die teorie dat ‘n ander hemelligaam die planeet getref het. Die ironie is egter dat die wetenskap gebou is rondom gelykmatigheid of uniformitarianisme (in engels “uniformitarianism”) – dit is die teorie dat alle verskynsels verduidelik kan word as ‘n resultaat van bestaande kragte wat uniform gewerk het vanaf die begin van die heelal tot nou. Gewoonlik word skeppingsleerders juis gekritiseer omdat hulle vir katastrofes, soos die sondvloed, ruimte maak. (Kyk ook Up with Catastrophism!)

Hierdie DVD wys dat wetenskaplikes duidelik die ontstaan van bitter min dinge deur die oerknal kan verklaar. Die enigste ding waaroor wetenskaplikes lyk my wel baie seker is, is dat dit deur die oerknal plaasgevind het. Hierdie verklap nogal baie oor die wetenskap se naturalistiese benadering (kyk ook Hoekom is daar soveel wetenskaplikes wat aan evolusie glo?).

Net iets wat verduidelik moet word: in hierdie DVD praat Spike van "evolusie". Mense kritiseer hom daarvoor en sê dat evolusie 'n biologiese proses is en nie 'n term is wat in die kosmologie gebruik word nie. 'n Mens kry egter biologiese evolusie, kosmiese evolusie en geologiese evolusie. Dus, as Spike van evolusie praat in die kosmos, praat hy van kosmiese evolusie (kyk Evolusie). Die rede hoekom hy die woord "evolusionis" gebruik eerder as bv "kosmoloog", is dat 'n kosmoloog ook kan glo dat God die heelal in ses dae geskep het volgens die Bybel. Evolusioniste glo dit nie. Hy kon alternatiewelik ook verwys het na "bigbanggers" (of "oerknallers" in Afrikaans).

Die volgende aanhalings van sekulêre wetenskaplikes spreek boekdele:

*******

Die volgende aanhaling wys duidelik dat evolusioniste nie verstaan hoe die planete in ons sonnestelsel gevorm het nie:

“Once these planetestimals have been formed, further growth of planets may occur through their gravitational accretion into large bodies. Just how that takes place is not understood.”
Martin Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 2nd Ed, p 533

Mercurius

“The driving force behind previous attempts to account for Mercury has been to fit the high density of the planet into some preferred overall solar system scheme... It has become clear that none of these proposed models work, and the high density is conveniently accommodated by the large-impact hypothesis, which makes Mercury unique.”
SR Taylor, Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective, p 194

“Mercury is so small that the general opinion is that the planet should have frozen solid eons ago.”
SR Taylor, Destiny or Chance: our solar system and its place in the cosmos, p 163

Kyk ook

Venus

Vir Venus, kyk Venus: cauldron of Fire.

Aarde

“The mechanism for generating the geomagnetic field remains one of the central unsolved problems in geoscience.”
Quoting the report from the National Geomagnetic Initiative Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources

“Magnetism is almost as much of a puzzle now as it was when William Gilbert (1544-1603) wrote his classic text, ‘Concerning Magnetism, Magnetic Bodies, and the Great Magnet, Earth’ in 1600.”
SR Taylor, Destiny or Chance: our solar system and its place in the cosmos, p 163-164

“There’s one thing on which most geochemists and astronomers agree: The celestial pantry is now empty of a key ingredient in the recipe for earth.”
Science News, 23 March 2002

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of live on earth rather than to its solution. At present, all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”
Professor dr Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers”, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol 13, no 4, pp 348-356

“It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.”
Leslie E Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth”, Scientific American, vol 271, October 1994, pp 88-83

Kyk ook

Aarde se maan

“In spite of everything that we have learned during the last few years, we still cannot decide between these three theories [(1) Fission, (2) Nebula and (3) Capture][1]. We still need more data and perhaps some new theories before the origin of the moon is settled to everyone’s satisfaction.”
Berian M French, The New Moon: A Window on the Universe (Washington DC: NASA), p 11

Omdat bogenoemde drie teorieë nie een werk nie, word beweer dat ‘n asteroide aarde getref het (reuse impak teorie of “giant impact theory”). Oor hierdie teorie sê Peter Noerdlinger:
“The collision has to be implausibly gentle. You practically need someone to hold a Mars-sized object just above earth and drop it, to avoid messing up earth’s orbit.”
Peter Noerdlinger, Ph.D., quoted in New Scientist, 23 January 2007, p 16

Wetenskaplikes het water op maan gevind. Dit is ‘n groot terugslag vir die groot impak teorie om die maan se ontstaan te verklaar. Erik Hauri sê hieroor:

“It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water... That’s a really, really difficult knot to untie.”
Erik Hauri, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Terrestrial Magnetism in Washington DC, as quoted in http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyld=92383117

Kyk ook

Jupiter

Jupiter draai vinniger om sy eie as as wat ‘n mens sou verwag van die oerknalmodel:

“We came to the conclusion... that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, prograde rotation just can’t be explained. The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day.”
Richard A Kerr, ‘Theoreticians Are Putting A New Spin on the Planets’, Science, Vol 258, 23 October 1992, p 548

“Jupiter is the largest of all the planets, but results in Nature now reveal the embarrassing fact that we know next to nothing about how – or where – it formed.”
Philip Ball, ‘Giant Mistake’, Nature science updated, 18 November 1999

“Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn – the gas Giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass – and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.”
Richard A Kerr, ‘A quickie birth of Jupiters and Saturns’, Science, Vol 298, 29 November 2002, 1698-9

“Building Jupiter has long been a problem for theorists.”
George W Wetherill, ‘How Special is Jupiter?’, Nature, vol 373, 9 February 1995, p 470

“I don’t think that the existence of Jupiter would be predicted if it weren’t observed.”
GW Wetherill, The Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems, 1989, p 27, as quoted in SR Taylor, Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective, 2001, p 205

Kyk ook

Saturnus

“’After all this time, we’re still not sure about the origin of Saturn’s rings,’ says Jeff Cuzzi, a planetary scientist at the NASA Ames Research Center. Cuzzi speculates that some hundreds of millions of years ago – a time when the earliest dinosaurs roamed our planet – Saturn had no bright rings. Then, he says, something unlikely happened: ‘A moon-sized object from the outer solar system might have flown nearby Saturn where tidal forces ripped it apart. Or maybe an asteroid smashed one of Saturn’s existing moons.’ The debris encircled the planet and formed the rings we see today.”
The Real Lord of the Rings, 30 April 2007

(Hoekom hierdie aanhaling so noemenswaardig is, is omdat wetenskaplikes weereens die reuse impakteorie gebruik om te nog ‘n planeet en sy mane se ontstaan te probeer verklaar. Neem in ag dat dit dieselfde wetenskaplikes is wat skeppingsleerders kritiseer omdat hulle in katastrofes, soos die sondvloed, glo.)

“Saturn dumbfounded planetary theorists who study dynamo models by having a highly symmetrical internal magnetic field. A field that is symmetric about the rotation axis violates a basic theorem of magnetic dynamos.”
Fran Baganel, ‘A New Spin on Saturn’s Rotation’, Science 316:380, 20 April 2007

“...these theories fail to describe the formation of gas giant planets in a satisfactory way. Gravitational interaction between the gaseous protoplanetary disc and the massive planetary cores causes them to move rapidly inward over about 100 000 years in what we call the ‘migration’ of the planet in the disc... Theories predict that the giant protoplanets will merge into the central star before planets have time to form. This makes it very difficult to understand how they can form at all.”
Astronomy & Astrophysics press release, The locked migration of giant protoplanets, 21 March 2006

(Met ander woorde, Jupiter en Saturnus sou eerder neig om na die son te beweeg en met die son te bots.)

“Understanding the formation of giant plantes is currently one of the major challenges for astronomers.”
Astronomy & Astrophysics press release, The locked migration of giant protoplanets, 21 March 2006

Oor die hoeveelheid metaan op Titan, Saturnus se grootste maan:

“The liquid inventory... is not enough in volume terms to sustain the concentration of this greenhouse gas in the atmosphere on geological timescales. Put another way, there is an order of magnitude less liquid in the lakes [on Titan] than there is methane in the atmosphere, and photochemical models predict that inventory to be depleted in ~10 million years.”
Lorenz et. al, ‘Titan’s inventory of organic surface materials’, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 35, page L02206, 29 January 2008

Kyk ook:

Uranus

“To place the Uranian satellites in their present (almost coplanar circular) orbits would require all the trajectory control sophistication of modern space technology. It is unlikely that any natural phenomenon, involving bodies emitted from Uranus could have achieved this result.”
H Alfven and G Arrhenius, Structure and Evolutionary History of the Solar System, 1975, D Reindel Publising C0, Dordrecht Holland and Boston, MA, p 219

Miranda, een van Uranus se mane

“No one predicted anything looking like Miranda.”
SR Taylor, Destiny or Chance: our solar system and its place in the cosmos, 1998, p 86

“The central problem in modelling the thermal histories of the Uranian satellites is accounting for Miranda.”
Croft SK (1988) Uranus conference extracts, Pasadena, 5.10, as quoted in ST Taylor, Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective, 1992, p 261

“...scientists believe that Miranda may have been shattered as many as five times during its evolution. After each shattering, the moon would have reassembled from the remains of its former self with portions of the core exposed and portions of the surface buried.”
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Objective=Miranda as of 1 November 2007

“Although some sort of collisional disruption appears to be required, it is obvious that the present terrain, with relief up to 20 km, would survive catastrophic disruptions and reassembly.”
Taylor, Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective, Cambridge University Press, p 261, 1992

“Miranda’s appearance can be explained by theories, but the real reason is still unknown.”
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Objective=Miranda as of 1 November 2007

Toe Voyager verby Uranus beweeg het, het hulle gesien dat Uranus se magnetiese veld gekantel is relatief tot sy rotasie-as en nie deur die middel gaan nie (kyk Uranus/magnetosfeer en ook ‘n prentjie). ‘n Moontlike verklaring daarvoor was dat Uranus se polariteit toevallig besig was om om te draai. Toe Voyager egter verby Neptunes beweeg het, is dit ook gevind dat sy magnetiese veld gekantel en offset.

“It seems that the possibility of finding two planets both experiencing magnetic polarity reversals is small.”
Christiansen and Hamblin, Exploring the Planets, p 424

Kyk ook:

Uranus en Neptunes

“Pssst... Astronomers who model the formation of the solar system have kept a dirty little secret: Uranus and Neptune don’t exist. Or at least computer simulations have never explained how planets as big as the two gas giants could form so far from the sun. Bodies orbited so slowly in the outer parts of the sun’s protoplanetary disk that the slow process of gravitational accretion would need more time than the age of the solar system to form bodies with 14.5 and 17.1 times the mass of earth.”
RN Birth of Uranus and Neptune, Astronomy, 28(4):30, 2000

“What is clear is that simple banging together of planetesimals to construct planets takes too long in this remote outer part of the solar system. The time needed exceeds the age of the solar system. We see Uranus and Neptune, but the modest requirement that these planets exist has not been met by this model.”
SR Taylor, Destiny of Chance: our system and its place in the cosmos, p 73

“There have been many attempts to model the evolution of a swarm of colliding planetesimals... Safronov calculated the characteristics timescales of planetary growth. In the terrestrial region he found timescales of 107 years [10 000 000] [10 miljoen] but the time estimates increased rapidly in the outer regions of the solar system and was 1010 [10 000 000 000] [10 miljard] years for Neptune – which is twice the age of the solar system. It is clear that, in the view of the large timescales found for the formation of the outer planets, a satisfactory theoretical model of the accretion of planet from diffuse material in not available at present.”
JR Dormand and MM Woolfson, The Origin of the Solar System: the capture theory, p 39

“It’s clear that our level of sophistication of studying planet formation is relatively primitive... So far, it’s been very difficult for anybody to come up with a scenario that actually produces Uranus and Neptune.”
Martin Duncan, Queens University, quoted in Astronomy 28(4):30

(Let op “come up with a scenario”. Selfs al is daar a geldige scenario is dit nog geen bewys dat dit wel so gebeur het nie. Hierdie mense is duidelik besig om te kyk of hulle alles kan verklaar sonder ‘n god.)

Kyk ook

Komete

Komete kan slegs vir ongeveer 10 000 jaar bestaan. Dus is die heelal jonger as 10 000 jaar of dit word van êrens anders aangevul. Evolusioniste beweer dat komete ontstaan in die Oortwolk of die Kuiper gordel.

“Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort cloud: its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.”
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, Comets, 1997, p 230

Vir komete om te ontstaan word komeet-nukleuse benodig in die TNO (Trans-Neptunian Object) gebied. Tydens ‘n studie is gevind dat daar heeltemal te min van hierdie nukleuse bestaan. Dus is komete ‘n groot probleem vir evolusioniste.

“We see clearly from figure 8 that the theoretical estimates are wildly inconsistent with the results of our ACS survey. The best-fit observational estimates fall short of the theoretical models by 2 to 4 orders of magnitude.”
Bernstein and Trilling et al, The Size Distribution of Trans-Neptunian Bodies, as submitted to the Astrophysical Journal.

Kyk ook:

In opsomming

“We have seen that we know very little about the development of the solar system.”
Martin Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, Second edition, p 37

“To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the solar system are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.”
Sir Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution, p 359

Kyk ook

Voetnotas

[1] Daar is vier hipoteses oor hoe die maan kon gevorm het:

  1. Fission (‘spouse’ theory): Die hipotese dat die aarde so vinnig gedraai het dat ‘n deel afgebreek het en die aarde se maan gevorm het.
  2. Accretion theory (‘sister’ theory) of Nebula-teorie: Die idee dat die aarde en maan (of die hele sonnestelsel) gelyktydig uit ‘n nebula (‘n wolk van stof en gas) gevorm het en dat die son en maan die res van die stof saamgetrek het sodat daar vandag slegs die aarde en maan oorbly en geen stof.
  3. Capture (‘daughter’ theory): Die maan het deur die ruimte beweeg en is “gevang” deur die aarde se aantrekkingskrag.
  4. Impact: Die hipotese dat ‘n Mars-grootte asteroïde die aarde getref het en die puin uiteindelik saamgesmelt het en die maan gevorm het.

Kyk The moon’s recession and age. Let daarop dat nie een van hierdie hipoteses al waargeneem is nie. Dit is bloot hipoteses en deel van historiese wetenskap.