RSR Week: Exoplanets Challenge Evolution

* Conventional Theory of Planet Formation Getting Hit Hard: The Answers magazine article on Exoplanets - Unpredictable Patterns is discussed on this Real Science Radio show by hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart:

- According to planetary evolution theory, a gas giant couldn't form close to its star but now such stars, called Hot Jupiters, are being readily found.

- Merely because our solar system has planets that have nearly circular orbits evolutionists conveniently imagined that planetary systems would form from condensing, rotating gas clouds to produce planets with nearly circular orbits, except that now they know that many of the exoplanets have highly eccentric orbits.

- While our own Venus has a retrograde (backward) rotation, for which evolutionists have to resort to catastrophism to explain (as with so many of the features of the solar system), one exoplanet discovered so far is believed to be orbiting backwards. Now, try to simulate that without violating the conservation of angular momentum!

- Bob, Fred, and Isaac Newton all reject the claim that our solar system formed naturally, and from a condensing spinning gas cloud reject the claim that planetary systems would form from condensing, rotating nebula (a gas cloud). As the man most-often described as the greatest scientist who ever lived (no, not Fred, Isaac), who first described universal gravitation, explained color, invented calculus, and defended the historical accuracy of Scripture,  Newton's scientific insight led him to believe that no natural method could account for our planetary system, and he explicitly rejected that gravity could form our planets from a spinning nebula. The nebula theory leads scientists to make extremely obvious predictions, which so often turn out to be dramatically wrong.  (UPDATE: In June 2011 NASA reported that the Sun is not made of the same version (isotopes) of Oxygen and Nitrogen as is the Earth.)  Bob and Fred add to Isaac's own insights from a discovery made by astrophysicists long ago. The Sun has 98% of the mass of the solar system, and a prediction based on the natural formation assumption is that therefore it would have 98% of the angular momentum (spin) of the solar system. But it does not. All atheists, for example, were shocked. Unexpectedly (to them), the Sun did not have 98% but it only has about 2% of the solar system's spin. So naturalistic scientists are forced to make wild secondary assumptions that would mince Ockham with his own razor to account for such "anomalies." But when their "anomalies" turn out be be among the most massive scientific observations possible in our solar system, they should no longer be considered anomalies. These kinds of discoveries depict the norm, and over eternity future, we will see that it is the big bang assumptions that were the anomalies.

* Cosmological Principle: Big Bang cosmologists, not by evidence but by faith, claim that there is no center to the universe and no edges to the universe. In contrast to that dogmatic belief, however, scientists have discovered a quantized redshift to galaxies that indicates a regular pattern centered on our arm of the Milky Way in the distribution of mass throughout the universe, with galaxies located in concentric spheres out from the center, with the Earth being almost at the center but just far enough off center to falsify the claim that the observational data is some kind of isotropic mirage. [Update: To understand better that the cosmological principle is a philosophical claim and to get an update on the nested shells clustering of the galaxies, check out the 2012 show and notes at RealScienceRadio.com/cosmological-principle.]

* Anthropic Principle: Big Bang cosmologists claim that there is no problem with the many exquisitely and extraordinarily fine-tuned physical parameters of the universe because if they weren't perfectly tuned, we wouldn't be here to wonder about them. [Update: Lawrence Krauss told this to RSF in 2012.] The universe really is fine tuned. In just a single example, the standard deviation of the essential electron to proton mass ratio is 1 to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (i.e., one out of ten followed by 36 zeros , or one in 10,000 decillion). So, having enough universes so that by chance one of them would have this single physical parameter just right to permit life as we know it would require millions, upon billions, upon trillions, of universes, and that's just to get the electron to proton ratio right. And chance would then have to give you trillions of those exceedingly unlikely universes with that specific parameter value so that you could then begin, by chance, to get a universe that has the next parameter fine tuned. And so on. As Walter ReMine explains (The Biotic Message, 1993, pp. 59-66), the Anthropic Principle presents the illusion of being scientific, but it is typically presented by evolutionists in one of two forms, either as a tautology or as a metaphysical claim. As a tautology, the AP is not scientific because it is not explanatory and not testable: we observe the universe as perfectly tuned because we observe it as perfectly tuned, which is like a doctor saying, "Your father is deaf because he cannot hear." And as a non-scientific metaphysical claim, atheists claim that our universe is perfectly tuned because there are googols of other universes that are not perfectly tuned, and we just happen to be in the one that is. And typically, to then provide the illusion of proof, the evolutionist switches from the metaphysical to the tautological form, and appends to that the tautology that "after all, if it wasn't fine tuned so that we could be here, then we wouldn't be here.")

The finely tuned parameters of the universe include (see this at our RSR debate with theoretical physicist, emphasis on the theoretical, Lawrence Krauss):
- the electron to proton ratio with a standard deviation of 1 in 10 to the 37th
- the electron to proton mass ratio
- the gravitational force constant
- the electromagnetic force constant
- the electromagnetic force in the right ratio to the nuclear force, and
- the ratio of the number of electrons to protons, etc.
So it is claimed that the Anthropic Principle answers why the extraordinarily unlikely precise values of these ratios exist, including the one in 10,000 decillion odds against us having a virtually perfect one-to-one electron-to-proton ratio. As Stephen Hawking points out in his Brief History of Time, p. 129, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded [as beautiful supernovas]."
And for life to exist the finely tuned parameters of the Earth include:
- Earth has a nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.02)
- the Earth-Moon relationship
- the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05)
- Earth's magnetic field
- the just-right ozone layer
- the Earth's spin rate
- the water cycle
- the atmospheric pressure
- the liquid water that exists because the Earth is just the right distance from the Sun, etc.
But atheists are content to say that the Anthropic Principle explains all this, which is really just another example of the common "just-so" story telling and circular reasoning in pop science Big Bang and Darwinist circles today.

Oct. 2011 UPDATE: Water is an emergent property of the combination of hydrogen and oxygen that theoretically is not predictable even after an exhaustive analysis of its component atoms. Why water is stable and why it doesn't "break down completely" has puzzled scientists. In October 2011, scientists have published their discovery that water has opposing quantum effects that "cancel each other out." And as New Scientist concludes and reported by Creation magazine, "We are used to the idea that the cosmos' physical constraints are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water's quantum forces can be added to this 'just right' list."

2012 UPDATE TO OUR UPDATE: Until now, the fine tuning of quantum mechanics and the field of biology seemed unrelated. Not any longer! From Science Daily: "Quantum physics and plant biology seem like two branches of science that could not be more different, but surprisingly they may in fact be intimately tied." And from PNAS as reported by Wired, "More evidence found for quantum physics in photosynthesis." So, it turns out that THE UNIVERSE REALLY IS FINE TUNED FOR LIFE!

* The Big Clang: Hundreds of scientists, including many at world-class institutions, have publicly signed the Cosmology Statement as published in New Scientist to show the growing dissent in scientific circles regarding the increasingly awkward and superficially propped-up theory of the Big Bang.

* Allegedly Confirmed Predictions of the Big Bang Contradicted by Physicists: (post-show update) Regarding the claimed prediction of the ratios of elements in the universe, Lawrence Krauss (p. 18, A Universe from Nothing) is wrong when he claims this confirms the Big Bang. As published in the journal Nature:

Distribution of Elements:

“It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of D (Deuterium, i.e., heavy hydrogen, N+P), ³He (Helium N+2P), and ⁴He (2N+2P) and ⁷Li (Lithium 3P+4N) provide strong evidence for Big Bang cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required [predicted] abundances.” -H. C. Arp et al., 1990 Nature 346, pp. 807-812 Aug. 30

 “The study of historical data shows that over the years, predictions of the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a Big Bang universe have been repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of that ratio as observed in the real universe. ... The estimated ratio… has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been predictions, but merely adjustments of [Big Bang] theory to accommodate current data.”  Physics Essays 1997

Microwave Background Radiation:

“History also shows that some Big Bang cosmologists’ ‘predictions’ of MBR [microwave background radiation] temperature have been ‘adjusted’ after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.” William C. Mitchel, “Big Bang Theory Under Fire,” Physics Essays, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1997, pp. 370 – 379

The original prediction of 30 degrees was off by a factor of 10 universes as compared to the actual 3 degrees (2.7K). If you have additional information about this matter, please feel free to pass your thoughts along to Bob@realscienceradio.com. Thanks!

And generally, regarding chemical elements, CMB temperature, etc:

"What’s more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation." Eric Lerner et al., “Bucking the Big Bang,” New Scientist, Vol. 182, 22 May 2004, p. 20.

Therefore many relevantly degreed scientists, many of whom work at prestigious institutions, have signed CosmologyStatement.org stating that, "the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters..."

* Shock and Awe: 10,000 discoveries have falsified evolutionist predictions. Yet with the relentless barrage of evolutionists quoted as "shocked" by wildly unexpected discoveries, the evolutionists pretend that no such pattern of falsified predictions exists. As with the discovery of hot Jupiters and the sequencing of the chimp's Y chromosome, a thousand times over, naturalistic scientists are baffled by what they find, which repeating pattern, of discovery and shock, discovery and shock, discovery and shock, is actually a repeated exercise of prediction and falsification, prediction and falsification, prediction and falsification. An open-minded evolutionist should be willing to re-evaluate his strictly materialistic assumptions. "Rejection of a Creator is not a conclusion from science, but a bias brought to science," said Bob Enyart.

Today’s Resource: You'll just love the science DVDs, books, and written, audio or video debates we offer through our Real Science Radio broadcasts! So have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out Bob most highly-recommended astronomy DVD, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy! And see Walt Brown’s great hardcover book, In the Beginning! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with the infamous anti-creationist Dr. Eugenie Scott. And if you have young kids or grand kids, you owe it to them and to yourself to give them as a gift the SUPERB kids' radio programming on audio CD, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine and Ken Ham's Answers magazine!  Or to order by phone just call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278).

Post-Show Update: The Creationist Isaac Newton: Atheist AronRa denied that Newton could be counted among the creationist scientists, so Bob Enyart reminded Ra on air and in their debate that:
- Newton held that God specially created the two first humans, Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden
- Newton wrote extensively to show the correctness of the biblical chronology starting with the Creation (including his 370-page The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms)
- Newton believed specifically that the one true God, by His divine will, specially created the earth
- Newton rejected the possibility of a naturalistic origin of the solar system
- Newton held that God specially created the solar system in full operation, along with the entire cosmos
- Newton admired Bishop Ussher's work and defended the literal date of creation of the entire cosmos as occurring about 4,000 B.C.

In one of scores of possible examples of Newton's worldview, on February 11, 1692 (or 1693), Newton wrote to Richard Bentley:

The Hypothesis of deriving the frame of the world by mechanical principles from matter eavenly spread through the heavens being inconsistent with my systeme, I had considered it very little before your letters put me upon it, & therefore trouble you with a line or two more about it if this come not too late for your use. In my former I {represented} that the diurnal rotations of the Planets could not be derived from gravity but required a divin{e} power to impress them. And tho gravity might give the Planets a motion of descent towards the Sun either directly or with some little obliquity, yet the transverse motions by which they revolve in their several orbs required the divine Arm to impress them according to the tangents of their orbs I would now add that the Hypothesis of matters being at first eavenly spread through the heavens is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the Hypothesis of innate gravity without a supernatural power to reconcile them, & therefore it infers a Deity. For if there be innate gravity its impossible now for the matter of the earth & all the Planets & stars to fly up from them & become eavenly spread throughout all the heavens without a supernatural power. & certainly that which can never be hereafter without a supernatural power could never be heretofore without the same power. –Isaac Newton