Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!timeinc!phri!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 29)
Message-ID: <522@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 17:49:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.522
Posted: Thu Jun 27 17:49:18 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 06:37:58 EDT
References: <379@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 56

In article <379@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>
>     THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
>
>II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND  LIFE
>    WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
>
>    A.  NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS  FOR  THE  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  SOLAR
>        SYSTEM   AND   UNIVERSE   ARE   UNSCIENTIFIC   AND  HOPELESSLY
>        INADEQUATE.
>
>       51.  Computer simulations of the  motions  of  spiral  galaxies
>            show  them  to  be highly unstable; they should completely
>            change their shape in only a small fraction of the assumed
>            age  of the universe [a]. The simplest explanation for why
>            so many spiral galaxies exist, including our own Milky Way
>            Galaxy,  is  that  they  and the universe are much younger
>            than has been assumed.
>
	Actually, there is another alternative. Note the following two
facts, spiral arms are composed of predominantly hot, rapidly burning
stars, and spiral arms contain large amounts of interstellar gas.
These points suggest that spiral are are dynamic features, being
continually reformed out of newly formed stars.

>       52.  If the sun, when  it  first  began  to  radiate,  had  any
>            nonnuclear   sources  of  energy,  they  would  have  been
>            depleted in much less that ten million years.  Theory  [a]
>            and  experiment  [b] indicate that today nuclear reactions
>            are not the predominant energy source  for  the  sun.  Our
>            star,  the  sun,  must  therefore  be young (less than ten
>            million years old). If the sun is young, then  so  is  the
>            earth.
>
	Huh?!?!? *non*nuclear energy sources in the Sun!?!? This has
not, as far as I know, been seriously proposed for over half a
century! The neutrino deficit merely indicates existing models are
incomplete, not that there is a non-nuclear energy source!
>
>       53.  Detailed analyses  indicate  that  stars  could  not  have
>            formed  from  interstellar gas clouds. To do so, either by
>            first  forming  dust  particles   [a,b]   or   by   direct
>            gravitational  collapse  of  the gas, would require vastly
>            more time than the alleged age of the universe. An obvious
>            alternative is that stars were created.
>
	This is true with regard to *simple* models, most modern
models, however, postulate shock waves as the triggering mechanism.
Nowadays these shock waves come from supernovas, originally they
could well have been the shock wave of the Big Bang.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen