Discovering New Planets Reveal What Scientists Know

What is the difference between complex models and the average man or woman on the street when it comes expectations of what we should be observing in space? John Johnson has a pretty amazing job which consists of locating new planets around other stars, which are known as exoplanets.  He was interviewed in Caltech’s latest edition of it’s magazine.

He says…

“We’re interested in how the solar system formed.  We’re interested in our immediate environment and describing its origins.  And beyond that, we’re interested in general in how planetary systems formed.  There are some very specific questions that arise at every turn.  There are so many surprises in this field—almost nothing is turning out as we expected.”

“There are Jupiter-mass planets in three-day orbits.  There are planets with masses that are between those of the terrestrial planets in our solar system and the gas giants in the outer part of our solar system.  There are Jupiter-mass planets with hugely inflated radii—at densities far lower than what we thought were possible for a gas-giant planet.  There are giant planets with gigantic solid cores that defy models of planet formation, which say there shouldn’t be enough solids available in a protoplanetary disk to form a planet that dense.”

“There are planets with tilted orbits.  There are planets that orbit the poles of their stars, in so-called circumpolar orbits.  There are planets that orbit retrograde—that is, they orbit in the opposite direction of their star’s rotation.  There are systems of planets that are in configurations that are hard to describe given our understanding of planet formation.  For instance, some planets are much too close to one another.”

“But a lot of those surprises have to do with the fact that we have only one example of a planetary system—our solar system—to base everything on, right? What’s interesting is that we’ve found very little that resembles our example.”

So what is the difference between complex models and the average man or woman on the street when it comes expectations of what we should be observing in space? Cosmology has more funding, and work into their complex models but in reality the guess of the average man or woman would not be that far off from what scientists predicted in space. Cosmology has the luxury (like many other areas in evolutionary science) of bragging how wrong they are time after time, again and again in their expectations which doesn’t expand knowledge! Only the discoveries themselves do and yet, still have people admire their work and the funds keep rolling in. No other job has this luxury!

This is the problem of mandating science through government funds in a particular direction!  Before extrasolar planets were discovered, astronomers it was certain that other solar systems would resemble ours. They focus on a particular framework which is approved by their group then it fails many times to produce results. In any other theory, red flags would arise. This is because it lacks competition which would create better science in exploring nature and in this case the universe.  Evolutionary science is not true, it’s been falsified quite a number of times and this is why their models are useless with real observations and lack understanding of planet formation and and the origins of the solar system.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Discovering New Planets Reveal What Scientists Know

  1. Cosmology is not ‘evolutionary science’, it is just science.

    Also, cosmology has little to do with planetary systems: hugely different scales.

    Finally, what’s up with my ban from my home address ?
    Are you still banning ?

  2. I’m still confused about how cosmology is “in evolutionary science.” Can you explain this, Michael, why you and several other creationist sites I peruse claim that cosmology has anything whatsoever to do with evolution?

  3. I’m still confused about how cosmology is “in evolutionary science.”

    You come late to the party, Stuart. For Michael “evolution” is a code word, a placeholder for any scientific theory that offends his beliefs. Just as “liberal” is his content-free term for a political view that he disagrees with. If he’s really incensed, Michael may combine them into an apotheosis of opprobrium, as in “liberal evolutionist.”

    .

    It has always been a source of wonder that, while creationists abhor evolution in science, they embrace it in economics. Darwin’s first supporters were not biologists, they were political and religious conservatives who saw his theory as a justification of England’s free-market capitalism, without any central authority. On the other hand, these same people decry centrally-planned economies as in the USSR, where everything is designed.

    It’s a good thing that creationists do not put much credence in logic.

    Of course, Michael has no qualifications to discuss science, economics, or logic. He has yet to back up his now 7-month-old challenge in this matter.

  4. Olorin, I know that in real life and to most people, evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. But I see this claim all the time on YEC websites. I want to understand from his point of view WHY he thinks it has anything to do with evolution.

  5. Stuart, I think Olorin answered that question already: ‘evolution’ is a catch-all for any scientific field that does not take his beloved bible as a dogmatic starting point.

  6. Eelco, yeah, I realize that’s the perception, and possibly the reality. But I really would like to know from Michael’s point of view how he justifies calling cosmology an evolutionary science. And I figure I’m more likely to get a response from him than AiG.

  7. And I figure I’m more likely to get a response from him than AiG.
    </blockquote.

    Bon couarge, mon ami! Others have tried and failed.

    Every time Michael fulminates against dark matter, I ask him why creationists deny its existence. It would seem that they would seize upon it as evidence of the biblical Hand of God passing over the Darkness, something too mysterious for mere science to understand. But no. Over a period of two years, I have been met with silence. No response. No defense of his position. Not a word.

    My hypothesis is that the only reason Michael denies dark matter is that AiG denies dark matter, and that's the end of it. So much for creationist critical thinking, eh?

  8. Stuart: “And I figure I’m more likely to get a response from him than AiG.”

    Nah. Same deal.

  9. Michael…

    Observations that go against what was formally expected is how science works… I fail to see why you even bother to put those quotes in bold.

    Evolutionary science is not true,

    There is no such thing as “evolutionary science… (at least not the way you imagine it) there is just science.

    it’s been falsified quite a number of times

    Since we have established that “evolutionary science” doesn’t exist im the sence you imagine it, how can you falsifiy something that doesn’t exist.

    and this is why their models are useless with real observations and lack understanding of planet formation and and the origins of the solar system.

    Michael, you must really have one thick skull. I have told you many times that cosmology is not evolution… Evolution is a field in Biology!!!

    I guess Olorin is right that you consider anything that goes against your grain as evolution…

    There is nothing here that poses a problem for science…if anything, it helps it… But this has nothing to do with evolution.

  10. Eelco :Stuart: “And I figure I’m more likely to get a response from him than AiG.”
    Nah. Same deal.

    I actually got a response from CMI once…. but i guess that doesn’t count since I didn’t really talk about the subject of creation or evolution.

  11. I got a response from AiG once, when another YEC blog had a post about a toy car found in a rock supposedly millions of years old.

    They replied politely at first, but then refused to tell me where it had been found—the picture was obviously not in its natural setting. They said a geologist had examined the rock, but would not tell me what he had said about it. In other words, friendly enough but a complete run-around.

    Finally, I showed the picture to a geologist friend. He said it was probably a brain coral a few years old. (AiG did finally admit that the “rock” was found on an ocean beach.)

    Does anyone still wonder why people laugh at creationists?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s