Crashing Materialistic Paradigms

You have to love space exploration, the Cassini mission was fun to write about as it supplied a lot of data along with others space explorations like New Horizons which is now on its last leg of its mission after it passed by Pluto. And now along comes the Juno mission which hasn’t been a disappointment! Every mission has a huge magnitude of surprises (crashing materialistic paradigms) which goes far beyond the norm for exploring the unknown.

New Horizons 2

But when a human spacecraft is unable to travel vast amount of distances so that observations can be seen from a direct vantage point, evolutionary scientists decided to create SETI and Astrobiology and then waste millions of dollars on hypotheticals based on materialism (evolution). Take this paper contained in pnas as an example…

“The search for extraterrestrial life is one of the most exciting frontiers in present-day astronomy. Recently, the TRAPPIST-1 star was discovered to host seven rocky planets with masses and radii similar to those of the Earth, of which at least three of them may be capable of supporting life. Our paper addresses the possibility that life on one of these planets can spread to others through the transfer of rocky material. We conclude that this process has a high probability of being operational, implying that this planetary system may possess multiple life-bearing planets. Thus, our work has profound theoretical and observational consequences for future studies of the TRAPPIST-1 system and the likelihood of life in our galaxy.”    


You have to give these scientists some credit, the fact that there is not one shred of evidence for life on those planets, no evidence for life being transported to Moon or Mars or any other planet in our solar system and yet, they get paid huge amounts of money to come up with these amazing science fiction stories so they can “look further” into the unknown subject. Abiogenesis or sometimes called chemical evolution or sometimes even referred to as “soups to cells”.  There is an attempt underway to divorce evolution with the origin of life because speculations are decreasing due to advance technology along with the complexity of the cells. The origin of life theory makes evolution overall look weaker. And if you are trying to convince people that evolution is an indisputable fact, you sure don’t want to make it look weak.

But the reality of the situation, evolution is weak. The subsets of evolution are weak as well. The problem with the origin of life from a materialistic view is that all components are required to be present, within the same location in order to have a remote possibility to create a living cell. However,  carbonyl chemical groups which are needed for life can destroy amino acids which are also needed for life. Living cells have mechanisms that prevent cross-reactions but not entirely, sometimes it does happen and when it does, living cells have the ability to repair the damage but dead chemicals do not have such abilities! If scientists do not know after 60+ years of trying how dead chemicals were created life on earth what makes them able to predict life on other planets that a spacecraft cannot fly to?

There is a huge difference between the Juno mission and this kind of so-called research!

Every encounter that Juno makes, crashes another materialistic paradigm as pointed out in The Conversation

“NASA’s Juno mission has started to deliver – forcing scientists to reevaluate what they thought they knew about the giant planet. The first findings from Juno, published in Science, indicate that many aspects of Jupiter have defied expectation – including the strength of its magnetic field, the shape of its core, the distribution of ammonia gas and the weather at its poles. It certainly makes this an exciting time to be a Jupiter scientist.”

Normally evolutionary scientists are taught, along with their egos, and agenda to never admit they are wrong. Rather, they will use words like, “improving our understanding or insight” or “needs to be looked further into” when their models are so way off base and looking into could last 50 to 100 years or more like the origin of life which leads to nowhere. Also admitting they are wrong would suggest that evolution, whether that be planetary evolution, or stellar evolution, or evolution in general, would suggest it’s rather weak in theory and that is a no-no, they want to make it look like the strongest thing in science that we know today. The Juno’s mission is no different.

Juno wasn’t the only spacecraft to record data that crushed assumptions about the planet’s magnetic field but NASA’s Cassini spacecraft during its final leg of its mission discovered as stated in NASA’s site

“Based on data collected by Cassini’s magnetometer instrument, Saturn’s magnetic field appears to be surprisingly well-aligned with the planet’s rotation axis. The tilt is much smaller than 0.06 degrees — which is the lower limit the spacecraft’s magnetometer data placed on the value prior to the start of the Grand Finale.”

“This observation is at odds with scientists’ theoretical understanding of how magnetic fields are generated. Planetary magnetic fields are understood to require some degree of tilt to sustain currents flowing through the liquid metal deep inside the planets (in Saturn’s case, thought to be liquid metallic hydrogen). With no tilt, the currents would eventually subside and the field would disappear.”

This is a common pattern with models that hold to the old age assumption, spacecraft which explore interesting parts of our vast solar system come back with data that contradict previous models held for many years which put scientists into rescue mode. Without these type of missions, it would be extremely difficult to tell what is really happening in the universe. And of course, NASA scientists would make these models sound like they are so well grounded and sound. Back to Jupiter, there are more discoveries to reveal…


What Juno did discover was very interesting, one of the best scientific discoveries of 2017!

There is a lot of strange deep motions going on which requires further exploration. Other discoveries by Juno include:

Jupiter Pole 2

“Juno’s camera has revealed numerous bright cyclones of a variety of appearances – some appear sharp, some have clear spirals, some are fluffy and diffuse, and the largest is some 1400km across. That’s about the same distance between London and Majorca. These bright storms sit on top of dark clouds, giving the appearance of “floating” on a dark sea…”

Perhaps someday a second spacecraft which is smaller than the mothership will be released and take measurements and pictures as it heads into the largest planet in the solar system! While the mothership continues its study of the planet for many days to come. Obviously, Juno will collect more surprises for evolutionists in terms of their models. Juno’s mission has been a great success so far and planetary evolution is not required for this mission, the engineers at NASA are one of the best in the world. That is where the taxpayer money should go when exploring the great unknown, for the most part not always, creating models before observation data comes in anyone can do, but not everyone can build, launch, and drive a spacecraft into a precise orbit to explore the vast unknown like engineers can!


Some Say Ring Particles Can Grow Into Moons

The Cassini spacecraft continues provide a great deal of amazing observations coming from Saturn and it’s moons. One moon in particular had been photographed at it’s closest range to date. The location of the moon known as Daphnis, orbits in the “Keeler Gap” within Saturn’s rings creating scallops and gouges as it touches them.

For the first time ever, observations represent embedded objects in a dust disk have been tracked. Some scientists are desperately hoping that material can “accrete” into larger objects like moons and these same principles might apply to the creation of planets from dust disks around stars. points out…

“The rings of Saturn might have given birth to the giant planet’s odd, small moons, scientists now reveal. These unusual moons, some of which resemble flying saucers, might have clumped together from the bits of ice and dust that make up Saturn’s majestic bands. The large moons that orbit the giant planets are thought to have finished forming roughly about when their hosts did, some 4.5 billion years ago.”

“However, calculations of the orbits of five small moons of Saturn that gather just within and beyond the periphery of the planet’s main bright rings revealed they are far too young for this to have been the case. These must be less than 10 million years old — for instance, they have bright, nearly pure ice surfaces largely unmarred by the impacts expected from meteoroids.”

The Nebular hypothesis which was proposed in 1755 by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and then modified in 1796 by Pierre Laplace has been falsified by recent discoveries in the modern era. The Accretion theory says that “the formation and evolution of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.55 to 4.56 billion years ago with the gravitational  collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.” It also has been falsified with recent observations and experiments.

“Over the past two hundred years, a standard model emerged to explain how solar systems form. Using our own solar system as a guide, the model explains the existence of a central star (our Sun), an inner system of rocky, “terrestrial” planets, and an outer system of “gas giant” planets, all orbiting in nearly the same plane of rotation as the central star.”

“Recent discoveries of planetary systems around other stars have challenged this model. These exoplanet discoveries have included gas giant planets in close orbit around their stars, some of which are in radically different planes of rotation from their primary stars.”  -Astrobiology Magazine

Quite a challenge to fit the data into a supposedly evolved solar system based on the Nebular hypothesis. Complexity due to a pattern of falsifications in a hypothesis or theory renders it useless. Inventing different schemes such as giving it a name, “migration” which makes life less probable around other stars in explaining how a gas giant could form beyond the ice line and then move inward toward the star. But is this interpretation a reliable conclusion?

What is useful science are the discoveries in which we can learn from space exploration or any other areas in science.  On the other hand, things like solar system formation by accretion has no observational evidence whatsoever! Labs in the modern era have shown particles bouncing off one another or break into smaller pieces not forming into larger or even more complex particles. This confirmed James Clerk Maxwell who showed in 1859, based on his model of Saturn’s rings, that larger particles cannot coagulate from revolving small particles!

There is no evidence of a nebula collapse, of stars forming, or of planetary systems forming under the explanation of the hypothesis. The only reason why this hypothesis still exists after 200 years is because scientists  keep trying to avoid the empirical evidence that indicates natural law has not been shown to be capable of providing! Rather, they put false hope into a particular model by inventing new elements in order to keep the hypothesis or theory alive.

The creationist model is based on the Bible and The Second Law of Thermodynamics

“Generally all systems will lean toward the most probable state possible, and then over time become totally random and disorganized. Albert Einstein stated this law particular law would be impossible to eliminate. We observe this in the natural world today!”

There is observational evidence for disruption, destruction, and dissolution, Christians believe the state of nature is going down not up (since the fall of Adam) and certainly there is no accretion of small objects evolving into into bigger ones as some claim that ring particles can grow into moons.