PDA

View Full Version : Creationist Astronomy



Æpoch
2003-Sep-26, 01:09 AM
:evil:
These article are about creationism trying to bend astronomy to its will.

The first one:Toward A Creationist Astronomy by Danny R. Faulkner and Don B. DeYoung
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/28/28_3/starevol.html
Says alot of nothing over alot of pages.

The 2nd, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/star-formation.html, is a gross distortion of the facts.
"The creationist also sees a time-scale problem with theories about present-day star formation. Although computer models typically give a million-year start-up time for new stars, such unlimited time is not available in a "young" universe. Observations of space reveal the universal trend of star degeneration, not star formation. Star formation may occur today in certain locations where conditions are met. However, it is doubtful that such rare star births can replace the many dying stars. Star decay is a fairly common event in the form of novas and supernovas. We can conclude that the universe of created stars is slowly aging."

So, basiclly, if the facts don't fit our prexisting believes, lets bend the facts to fit them, instead of the other way around.

The next, and last one is http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1384.asp
titled:Stars could not have come from the ‘big bang’---This is the ENTIRE ARTICLE (Well thought out, aye?)

Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium — the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form — and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.

Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.’1"Reference

1. Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998."

Wow! 1 Reference!!!


A nice evolutionist/secular/logical rebuttle can be found at:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_on_star_formation.htm

Enjoy!!!

freddo
2003-Sep-26, 02:24 AM
Welcome to the board. 8)

wedgebert
2003-Sep-26, 04:51 AM
Creationist Astronomy is like all other Creationist Sciences, an oxymoron. By putting the creationist in front of the field of study, you are saying that you only care about facts that fit your beliefs. All other results, facts, discoveries, etc are wrong by default.

Pi Man
2003-Sep-26, 06:00 AM
In my experience, they remain purposefully ignorant. They try to avoid evolutionist everything for fear that they might just get converted.

mr. show
2003-Sep-26, 02:47 PM
ah yes, the God of the Gaps

when in doubt, invoke a higher power

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Sep-26, 05:03 PM
Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.
But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

This must be the biggest mix-up I have ever read about Hydrostatic Equilibrium :lol: