|
|
|
Solar System series under review
Are the spontaneous generation of the solar system, the long age of the solar system, and the spontaneous generation of life facts or speculation?
Every now and then I watch programmes that discuss the universe, nature and the origin of everything. One such programme series is called Solar System (BBC). What did you remember about this programme series? It told about the research that has been done in the near space, i.e. our own solar system. Dozens of probes send continuous information and images of the nearby planets, their moons and smaller celestial bodies. Through them, new information has been obtained, for example, about the composition of the planets and moons and especially their activity. I'm not really talking about the information sent by the probes here. This is about ordinary, good scientific research, and there's nothing to add to it. That's how science always works. Instead, I will take a stand on some of the ideas and claims presented in the program series. They are the origin of the solar system, the age of the solar system, and the origin of life. The following statements were made in this program series about these issues:
The Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago along with the rest of the solar system, when a cloud of gas and dust collapsed under its own gravity. ...Initially, the sun was surrounded by a disk of dust and gas. The planets formed in this rotating disk. The planets and moons continued to orbit the sun in the same direction.... The early solar system was quite chaotic. Small pieces merged together and collided with each other. Sometimes there was destruction. Complete chaos.
When sulfur from Io reacts chemically with the salts of Europa, molecules important for life are created... In this perfect breeding ground, life can arise and develop... The possibility of life on Europa is so strong that NASA is preparing to explore the moon.
It is very important to study the volcanoes of the solar system. They can tell us about where we came from and how life in general began.
The origin of the solar system . First, the origin of the solar system. The program presented that the Earth and the solar system were created by themselves when a cloud of gas and dust collapsed under the influence of its own gravity. How do we know this? Nothing. It is only a question of conjecture, trying to find an explanation for why the Earth and the solar system exist today. It is generally accepted that the Earth and the rest of the solar system had a beginning; it is forced to admit this because, for example, the sun's energy reserves are limited and it could not have shone forever. However, this idea of the origin of the solar system presented in the program is based only on a naturalistic worldview, not on science, because scientifically it is impossible to prove the creation and origin of the solar system afterwards. When atheist scientists do not accept the idea of creation, they are therefore forced to come up with some other explanation for the existence of the solar system and the Earth. This view presented in the program is the most common naturalistic view of their origin. However, many scientists have criticized the theories related to the formation of the solar system. They see that they contradict real science. This is certainly true, because such celestial bodies could not possibly have arisen on their own. Contradictions in this most common theory include, among others, the following:
• The biggest problem with the formation of the solar system is related to the different compositions of the sun, planets and moons. If they had formed from a common gas cloud, they should also have the same composition, but this is not the case. For example, the sun consists of almost 99 percent light elements, i.e. hydrogen and helium, while the Earth has only about one percent of these elements and 99 percent heavy elements. The other inner planets also consist of heavy elements, while the large outer planets consist mainly of light elements. In addition, moons can be completely different in composition from their parent planets. Such differences should not exist if these celestial bodies have formed from the same primordial cloud.
• The idea that a gas cloud suddenly condensed after having been spread out for billions of years (as has been assumed) is impossible. The nature of gas is that it spreads out over an ever-widening area and never begins to condense again. This is standard school teaching and should not be abandoned. It is against true science to claim that the solar system was created in the above manner.
• The third problem is related to the rotation speed. The Sun's rotation speed is now about 2 km/s, but the original rotation speed should have been about 1000 km/s. Why is the rotation speed today so low, only 1/500 of the assumed original value? Another problem with the rotation rate is that if the rotation threw the planets away from the sun, then why does the sun rotate slower than the planets (e.g. the Earth rotates on its axis more than 25 times faster than it) ? Why does it rotate slower than the planets, even though it should rotate many times faster than the objects that were thrown away? Furthermore, the previous theory does not explain how some planets are billions of kilometers away from the sun. This should not be possible if they were born from the same primordial cloud.
As noted, many scientists have criticized the standard theories of the formation of the solar system. They see them as inconsistent with real science. Here are some comments on the subject:
First, we find that the matter that has been thrown out of our sun is not at all suitable for forming planets as we know them. The composition of matter would be hopelessly wrong. Another point in this contrast is that the sun is normal [a celestial body] and the earth is a freak. The interstellar gas and most of the stars are composed of the same materials as the sun, not like the earth. It must be understood that cosmically speaking—the room you are sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You yourself are a rarity, a compilation of the cosmic assembler. (Fred C. Hoyle, Harper's Magazine, April 1951)
Even nowadays, when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)
All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)
The age of the solar system is 4.5 billion years? Secondly, the question of the age of the solar system, which is proposed to be 4.5 billion years. How is this known? Nowhere. They have been based on radioactive measurements of meteorite rocks, but the problem is that no one can know whether the rocks have had daughter elements in them from the beginning. This is a problem with all radioactive measurements. One of the most dramatic examples is the age of lava rocks from the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii, which yielded ages ranging from 160 million to 3 billion years. This volcano erupted in 1800 and 1801, so the rocks considered ancient were actually less than 200 years old. Another observation is that if all the rocks were actually only less than 200 years old, why was there such a large age discrepancy? The Hualalai measurements gave the following results. The concentrations (ages) of the rocks were inconsistent with each other and with the fact that they crystallized less than 200 years ago. Such results from the measurements show that the concentrations of the rocks can be measured accurately, but they do not necessarily have anything to do with the actual age. Daughter elements may have been present in the rocks from the beginning:
1. 160 million years 2. 791 million years 3. 960 million years 4. 1500 million years 5. 1580 million years 6. 2040 million years 7. 2470 million years 8. 2960 million years
What if we looked at the universe with our own eyes? What do we see? We still see millions of stars and galaxies shining light. Which is more likely: are they infinitely old or are they relatively young? Certainly the latter is more likely, because there are so many stars and galaxies shining light. The universe would probably be a much darker place if it were billions of years old. The Solar System program series highlights one aspect of this issue. It explains how the planets and moons of the solar system are often very active, with intense volcanic activity. This should not be possible or likely if we were talking about billions of years. Their energy reserves would probably have been exhausted in that time due to their small size. The following are quotes from the program. The latter quote is about Jupiter's moon, Io, which is small in size but has enormous volcanic activity:
It is becoming clear that Earth is not alone. More than forty probes are currently mapping our near-Earth space. They are continuously sending back information to Earth, helping us study the solar system with unprecedented precision. They have discovered moons and planets whose volcanoes make Earth's volcanoes seem insignificant. Alien landscapes erupt with fire and ice. Huge eruptions reach into space... An astonishing variety of violently active celestial bodies have been discovered in the solar system... Explosive celestial bodies raise an essential question... It is very important to study the volcanoes of the solar system. They can tell us where we came from and how life in general originated.
Io has hundreds of active volcanoes, even though it is only a little over half the diameter of Mars. ...Because Io is so small, it should no longer produce heat or radioactive decay, as on Earth, for example... You would think that little Io would no longer be geologically active, but it is the most volcanically active place in the solar system. It is surprising. ... Eruptions continue unabated on Io's surface... How can such a small moon be so active?... The question is, why is such a small celestial body still volcanically active? Why hasn't its heat already been used up?... Io's orbit around Jupiter is not circular. It orbits its host in such an elliptical path. It is precisely the ellipticity of the orbit that is responsible for Io's volcanic activity... The phenomenon is called tidal heating. However, it only explains part of the heat required for Io's volcanic activity. So where does the rest of the heat come from?
The most common explanation for volcanic activity is gravity and the resulting tidal heating. However, this only explains part of the volcanic activity, as the previous quote acknowledges for the most active moon in the solar system, Io. In addition, for example, the dwarf planet Pluto, which is very far from the sun and was long considered a dark and cold place, is very active volcanically. The interior of the planet still has internal heat, even though it is small in size and has been considered billions of years old. What is the reason for this? At least tidal heating cannot explain it, because the tidal forces exerted by Pluto's moon Charon are only about one hundredth of those exerted on Io. The only reasonable explanation is that Pluto, like other bodies in the solar system, are not as old as previously thought. Otherwise, they would have already lost their internal energy.
The Origin of Life. The series also takes a stand on the origin of life. It acknowledges how this issue is still unclear, as it is thought that studying volcanoes can help us understand how life originated:
It is very important to study the volcanoes of the solar system. They can tell us about where we came from and how life in general began.
When sulfur from Io reacts chemically with the salts of Europa, molecules important for life are created... In this perfect breeding ground, life can arise and develop... The possibility of life on Europa is so strong that NASA is preparing to explore the moon.
What can be said about the above? The creators of the program are right that the spontaneous generation of life is still unproven. This matter will not be helped at all, even if the right molecules and substances are put together. It does not generate life, and there is sufficient empirical knowledge of this. Only life can generate life, and no exceptions to this rule have ever been found. The idea of the spontaneous generation of life is pure imagination and atheistic wishful thinking. So when it comes to the first life forms on Earth, animals and plants, there is only one option left: since they could not have arisen on their own, an external source of life must have created them. The only option for this is God. If someone does not admit this, they should prove that the emergence of life on their own is possible. So far, no one has been able to do this, and several scientists have stated that it is impossible:
Paul Davies: Many scientists are wary of publicly claiming that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they openly admit to being confused… ( 1 )
Harvard University biology professor Andy Knoll: As we try to piece together what we know about the deep history of life on planet Earth, the origins of life and the stages of its formation that led to the biology we see around us, we have to admit that it is shrouded in mystery. We don’t know how life began on this planet. We don’t know exactly when it began, and we don’t know under what circumstances. (2)
REFERENCES:
1. Paul Davies: Viides ihme, 1999, p. 14,15 2. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. may 2004, cit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
|
