[_ Old Earth _] NON- YOUNG UNIVERSE CREATIONIST ASTRONOMY FAILED

[kendemyer]

THE FAILURE OF NON- YOUNG UNIVERSE CREATIONIST ASTRONOMY



Below are some excellent quotes from that website which I believe shows the failure of non-creationist astronomy.


Planets and our solar system

“... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.†Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,†Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.

“To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.†Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution, 6th edition (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 3

taken from: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1144227

More regarding the Planets:

“Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturnâ€â€the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary massâ€â€and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.†Richard A. Kerr, “A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns,†Science, Vol. 298, 29 November 2002, p. 1698.

“In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, [what evolutionists believe is] the lifetime of the solar system. ‘Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ‘We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’ †Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,†Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054.


“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.†Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,†Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54.

“‘We came to the conclusion,’ says Lissauer, ‘that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, [the observed] prograde rotation just can’t be explained.’ The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day.†Richard A. Kerr, “Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets,†Science, Vol. 258, 23 October 1992, p. 548.

“Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.†George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?†Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.

taken from: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1059588

The moon:

Understanding these problems caused one expert to joke, “The best explanation [for the Moon] was observational errorâ€â€the Moon does not exist.â€Âf Similar difficulties exist for evolutionary explanations of the other 137 moons in the solar system.

f
. Jack J. Lissauer, “It’s Not Easy to Make the Moon,†Nature, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, pp. 327–328.

taken from: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1017968

Cosmic dust:

Evolutionists claim the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4,600,000,000 years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun.....

“For decades, astronomers have speculated that debris left over from the formation of the solar system or newly formed from colliding asteroids is continuously falling toward the sun and vaporizing. The infrared signal, if it existed, would be so strong at the altitude of Mauna Kea [Hawaii], above the infrared-absorbing water vapor in the atmosphere, that the light-gathering power of the large infrared telescopes would be overkill. ... In the case of the infrared search for the dust ring, [Donald N. B.] Hall [Director of the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy] was able to report within days that ‘the data were really superb.’ They don’t tell an entirely welcome story, though. ‘Unfortunately, they don’t seem to show any dust rings at all.’ †Charles Petit, “A Mountain Cliffhanger of an Eclipse,†Science, Vol. 253, 26 July 1991, pp. 386–387.

taken from: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... nces9.html

Stars:

“The universe we see when we look out to its furthest horizons contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains another hundred billion stars. That’s 1022 stars all told. The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.†Martin Harwit, Book Reviews, Science, Vol. 231, 7 March 1986, pp. 1201–1202.

“The origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics.†Charles J. Lada and Frank H. Shu, “The Formation of Sunlike Stars,†Science, Vol. 248, 4 May 1990, p. 564.

“In fact, given our current understanding of how stars form and the properties of the galactic center, it’s [stellar evolution near the galactic center is] not allowed to happen.†Andrea M. Gaze, as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Mystery in the Middle,†Science News, Vol. 163, 21 June 2003, p. 394.

“For example, no one can explain how the starsâ€â€which are 15 times heftier than our sunâ€â€got there [near the center of our galaxy]. According to most astronomical models, they are too big to have formed in the chaos of the galactic center but appear to be too young to have moved there from farther out.†Robert Irion, “The Milky Way’s Dark, Starving Pit,†Science, Vol. 300, 30 May 2003, p. 1356.

The bizarre question of the hour is what the young stars are doing there at all. Clouds of gas need a calm and cold setting to collapse into a ball dense enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Yet gravitational tidal forcesâ€â€from the black hole and from stars in the galaxy’s nucleusâ€â€make the galactic center the antithesis of such a [stellar] nursery.
Science, Vol. 300, 30 May 2003, p. 1357.

“Little is known about the origins of globular clusters, which contain hundreds of thousands of stars in a volume only a few light years across. Radiation pressure and winds from luminous young stars should disperse the star-forming gas and disrupt the formation of the cluster.†J. L. Turner et al., “An Extragalactic Supernebula,†Nature, Vol. 423, 5 June 2003, p. 621.

Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds. It’s really remarkable.†Rogier A. Windhorst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, “A Matter of Timing,†Scientific American, Vol. 267, October 1992, p. 30.

“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.†Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,†Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.

taken from: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1142149

Non-creationist astronomy overall:

“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.†Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,†New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.

taken from: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1065370

I will let readers decide how much explanatory power non-creationist astronomy has. :D



CREATIONIST ASTRONOMY: A BETTER ALTERNATIVE


Here is an overview of creationist material regarding astronomy:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ronomy.asp

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ences.html



BIG BANG THEORY DISSENT EXPLOSION

In May of 2004, the prominent secular science journal New Scientist published an open letter to the scientific community regarding big bang theory dissent.

Here is that letter:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/


33 Leading scientist signed the dissent letter:

Secular scientists blast the big bang http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... ticism.asp



It seems the public dissent of big bang theory associated with the science journal New Scientist may have broadened.

I cite:

The open letter, denouncing the orthodoxy of conventional cosmology, urges the funding of alterative approaches. It has now been signed by hundreds of scientists from countries around the globe.

taken from: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/Cosmology2004.html

Here are some excellent articles:

Exploding stars point to a young universe
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /stars.asp

A Second Look at Supernova Remnants
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/A ... nants.html

So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!â€Â
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329

The Big Bang Theoryâ€â€A Scientific Critique, part I url="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635"]http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635[/url]

The Big Bang Theory - A Scientific Critique, part II
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30

Arp's Anomalies
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2473

Big Bang Background Radiationâ€â€Is that “Roar†of the Heavens Merely Laughter?
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047

BUMPS IN THE BIG BANG by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-233.htm

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Current explanations by planetary scientists for the formation of the planets is not 100% complete nor 100%correct. THis is born out by new discoveries being made in other solar systems require more sophisticated explanations.
Big deal? Other then creating good employment opportunity for planetary scientists, not really. THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS. The more we observe, the better our knowledge.

According to the OP, however, since planetary science is not 100% correct it is therefore 100% wrong and that the only alternative is to use a literal interpretation of Judeo-christian creation mythology to "correct" the problem.

Why don't you use the "science" you claim is found in the Books of Genesis and Exodus to cure cancer, make efficient fusion, purify water on a large scale, and treat genetic disorders? Oh you can't do that? The "science" is only obvious in retrospect? Gee, really.

 

[reznwerks]

answers

Kendemeyer doesn't understand that if all the blanks aren't filled in that doesn't mean the theory is wrong . Being able to correct the mistakes and move on is what science is. Creationists don't use the scientific method at solving problems. Scientists propose a theory then test that theory and then look at the results or evidence and then draw a conclusion. Creationists on the other hand have already drawn a conclusion and are now desparately looking for evidence although outside of default they haven't one shred of hard evidence to validate their belief.

 

[Barbarian]

Have some compassion for Kendemeyer; the gaps in which he would like to hide his god are getting smaller and smaller.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Has anyone ever noticed how, despite the fact that all of these peer-reviewed publications now, more than ever, are in favor of things like the Big Bang Theory, Evolution by Natural Selection, Modern views on Cosmology, etc. that creationists will ignore all the evidence for these things from these journals to proclaim that no one believes in Evolution or the Big Bang and that those who do are carrying out bad science. And then having done this will point to obscure and archeaic literature from those selfsame, much maligned journals that in one way or another says there ought to be doubt about the theories we have, and say "Look, therefore god exists and you're all going to hell and we'll dance on your graves as we go to heaven, yippee."

This is what we in the sane world call intellectually dishonest. It's the equivalent of someone posting a reference to an article saying that the Ether Theory is a lot better established than general relativity, so we should not immediately accept it as true.

 

[Drew]

Have some compassion for Kendemeyer; the gaps in which he would like to hide his god are getting smaller and smaller.

As I have said in other threads, the Christian makes a fundamental mistake in claiming that God "fills" gaps - where a gap is some phenomena for which there is presently no physicalist explanation. Taking this position fundamentally entails an assumption that God works in ways that are necessarily beyond the grasp of the human mind.

My position is that God is indeed ultimately responsible for the ordered lawful universe that we live in. When we discovers "scientific" explanations for previously mysterious phenomena, this merely reveals the mechanism that He used.

The "God of the gaps" argument is a dead-end. The existence of God is entirely consistent with the existence of a universe whose "workings" are ordered, lawful, and accessible to the human mind.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

This is what we in the sane world call intellectually dishonest. It's the equivalent of someone posting a reference to an article saying that the Ether Theory is a lot better established than general relativity, so we should not immediately accept it as true.

Very true indeed.

http://www.crank.net/physics.html search for the word ether in that list.