A Dust Disk Makes A Stellar Disappearance

The widely accept planetesimal hypothesis among secular scientists where it is believed that the solar system was built from.  According to this hypothesis, planets require material from orbiting dust disks surrounding stars.

A new observation by astronomers revealed a dusty circumstellar disk, supposedly 10 million years old all of a sudden evaporated within 3  short years. This was indeed a falsification, none in the circle of consensus concerning the planetesimal hypothesis expected to witness such a rapid change: reduction of infrared emission by a factor of 30 in 3 years, caused by, the astronomers believe, “a correspondingly drastic depletion of the dust disk” in such a short period of time!

Why would something deemed to be 10 million years old, all of a sudden disappear in 3 years in a time frame when humans are able to observe it?  Rescue explanations arise, but as Nature News points out, “…these hypotheses (along with the possibility of occulting material lying somewhere along our line of sight to the star) can be excluded on the basis of the stability…

The reason why some were discounted was because of the catastrophic nature of what went on in which gravity is supposed to produce step by step gains in building planets rather than a complete pulverization that galvanized it out of existence.   This observation is not conducive to supposed planet formation according to the planetesimal hypothesis.

“Such a phase of rapid ejecta evolution has not been previously predicted or observed, and no currently available physical model satisfactorily explains the observations.”

So how was this explain in the media, phys.org said this was a break through in obtaining new insights on planet evolution.

“The most commonly accepted time scale for the removal of this much dust is in the hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions,” said study co-author Inseok Song, assistant professor of physics and astronomy in the UGA Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. “What we saw was far more rapid and has never been observed or even predicted. It tells us that we have a lot more to learn about planet formation.”

“…planets might form much faster than previously thought or, alternatively, that stars harboring planets could be far more numerous.”

Adding complexity to the hypothesis always creates more problems than it solves which also happens with Darwinian evolution, thus challenging the value on explaining reality.

“The researchers explored several different explanations for how such a large quantity of dust could disappear so rapidly, and each of their explanations challenges conventional thinking about planet formation… Like many important discoveries, the scientists’ finding raises more questions than it answers.”

How does a dusk disk disappear so quickly? When you break free of the framework created by consensus it sounds more logical. Stars and planets were created but that is not why they are breaking up so quickly rather it is because of the laws of thermodynamics, that is the cause of the breaking up, not building up.

We entrust our scientists with the job of explaining what is going on in the natural world.  Keep in mind there is a huge difference between scientific discovery and scientific explanation; it is great to make these observations, but not so great to maintain a false theory in the face of contradictory evidence by invoking ad hoc rescue explanations that refuse to consider non-paradigmatic solutions, such as creation!

What Is Your Favorite Scientific Debunked Belief?

Liberal blogger Richard Thaler, asked an interesting question about science theories going wrong and why it took so long for it to be corrected. He quite a response from scientists. One Physicist, writes…

“The earth is flat and the sun goes around it for the same reason that an apple appears to be more strongly attracted by the earth than a leaf, the same reason that when you add 20% and then subtract 20% you return to the same value, and the same reason that the boat is heavier than water. All of these statements appear to be correct, at first sight, and all of them are wrong…”

“The length of time it takes to figure it out is a matter of history and culture. Religion gets into it, psychology, fear of science, and many other factors. I do not believe that there is one parameter that determines how these things are found to be wrong…Religious people of all religions believe even more ridiculous things than all of the above. These are examples of the last 10 years, not of the middle ages.”

Here we go, the flat earth concept again, it has been used quite often by certain evolutionists to mock creationists or intelligent design proponents. One wonders how many years has this physicist really studied Christainity or religion? Most likely he has done some study, but ultimately he wrote a response that is based on a lie.

Isaiah 40:22…

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”

Suggesting the earth is a circle would not give the impression of it being flat! Rather than admitting their own faith in these conclusions they exalt evolution over God…

“The Great Chain of Being is another great example of a long-held, still not fully displaced, false view and also stems from the same kind of “wrongly centered ” thinking. Essentially the view is that humans stand at the pinnacle of creation (or just below God) and all other life forms are less perfect to a varying degree. Evolutionary theory teaches that all creatures are equally adapted to the niches in which they live; every branch of the tree is thus in a sense equally perfect.”

Who said Christianity and science were separate? First that say, it’s not a science, then they write in a blog that it’s a debunked science, which is of course is another lie coming from this particular camp of scientists. However, he does have a point about interpretation of the data, it’s based on a person’s logic or way of thinking. But his logic is clearly bias and outright wrong.

Science is a tool to learn with. On the other hand, evolution is a story that has been created by man. Take for example, Steven Taylor, a macro-invertebrate biologist from the University of Illinois who spent two decades studying the mysteries of cave life. His adventure was spending a lot of time in tight dark spots in numerous caves, observing bizarre creatures that live in these ecological “islands” cut off from the outside world. Now what he did in this project was about observing, recording data and studying the effects of the above-ground environment on the creatures below ground. It’s good science without a story about evolution. Science that confirms the Bible is another!

The cultists in evolution would like the public to believe that understanding these creatures without evolution would be impossible. The cultists in evolution would also like the public to believe that their truth is the way and the light and nobody can interpret nature but them. Answering the question about one’s favorite debunked scientific beliefs shows more than ever a need to open up science research, allow more views, creationist, intelligent design or otherwise!

Are Evolutionists Coming To Grips With Primordial Soup?

Evolutionary scientists have been trying for many years to answer one of the more fundamental questions about their hypothesis, “how did life arise?” For the past 80 years, evolutionists have been advocating that chemicals produced life in a soup type situation. A new study reveals…

“Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won’t work at all,” said team leader Dr Nick lane from University College London.”

“We present the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent – one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores.”

Many of these arguments used in the study were presented by creation scientists many years ago. It has been also presented in here…So, why is it that we have scientific observations which do not confirm life evolving from the soup like the destructive power of ultraviolet light and oxygen coming out now? Because they have finally come up with another way to try and explain how life began, this time through hydrothermal sea vents.

These vents have their own problems with creating information for life and then life itself as experiments have already shown. Evolutionary scientists claim the evidence is in the “zinc” instead of what the oceans consist of, “salt.” So how could natural means produce zinc? Can zinc really help produce life because it can store energy? There are so many of these conjecture ideas concerning the origin of life in evolution. What we observe is life comes from life, this is scientific and it’s biblical!

Newly Discovered Fossil Puts Another Hole In Tree

So DNA is not confirming horse evolution but rather showing variants within it’s own kind, but are dinosaurs any better? In PhysOrg it doesn’t appear the case…

“The description of the new species, named Tawa after the Hopi word for the Puebloan sun god, appears in the Dec. 10 issue of the journal Science in a paper lead-authored by Sterling Nesbitt, a postdoctoral researcher at The University of Texas at Austin’s Jackson School of Geosciences.”

Latest depiction of the animal.

“The fossil bones of several individuals were recovered, but the type specimen is a nearly complete skeleton of a juvenile that stood about 28 inches (70 cm) tall at the hips and was about 6 feet (2 meters) long from snout to tail. Its body was about the size of a large dog, but with a much longer tail.”

“The firm placement of Herrerasaurus within the theropod lineage points up an interesting fact about dinosaur evolution: once they appeared, they very rapidly diversified into the three main dinosaur lineages that persisted for more than 170 million years. Herrerasaurus was found in a South American rock layer alongside the oldest members of two major lineages—the sauropods and the ornithischians.”

The fossil was discovered in New Mexico when hikers accidently stumbled upon the bones back in 2004, key words to consider, “appeared” and “very rapidly diversified” which is something they also said about their DNA research on horses.  In 2006, imaginary feathers were created on Tawa in the artwork even though there were no feathers found on the bones, rather they said, “it was likely” the creature had features. But newer artwork found in PhysOrg of the animal shows no feathers unlike Nature

The newly discovered fossil also presents a problem about its source location of the missing ancestor. Tawa was found next to two other theropod dinosaurs which were around the same period of time. The article goes on to say that these three dinosaurs were related to those in South America. How could have these dinosaurs migrate so far away?

More articles are being published recently that are anti-gradualistic in theme but support abrupt appearance. Creationists have been advocating this for years, the evidence doesn’t show slow and gradual evolution. Proponents of this hypothesis (a non-thinking process) generally want to replace God with it, evolution according to them can do all the things the Lord can do.

They focus primarily about gene loss and alterations in the regulation of existing genes – not the increases in genetic information that molecules-to-man evolution would require.