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