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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 44) Message-ID: <556@psivax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 21:17:09 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.556 Posted: Thu Jul 11 21:17:09 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 20:30:11 EDT References: <402@iham1.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Distribution: net Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 70 Summary: In article <402@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. > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 83. The sun's gravitational field acts as a giant vacuum > cleaner that sweeps up about 100,000 tons of > micrometeroids per day. If the solar system were older > than 10,000 years, no micrometeroids should remain near > the center of the solar system since there is no > significant source of replenishment. A large disk-shaped > cloud of these particles is orbiting the sun. Conclusion: > the solar system is less than 10,000 years old [a,b]. > > > 84. The sun's radiation applies an outward force on very small > particles orbiting the sun. Particles less than 100,000th > of a centimeter in diameter should have been ''blown out'' > of the solar system if the solar system were billions of > years old. These particles are still orbiting the sun [a]. > Conclusion: the solar system is young. > Well, another contradiction! In fact it is even worse! These two facts would seem to explain each other! It looks like these two opposing forces might just cancel each other. > > 85. Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the > Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory > have made DIRECT visual measurements that indicate that > the sun's diameter is shrinking at a rate of about .1% > each century or about five feet per hour! Furthermore, > records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid > shrinking has been going on for at least the past 400 > years [a]. Several INDIRECT techniques also confirm this > gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse > rates are only about 1/7th as much [b,c]. Using the most > conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun > existed a million years ago, it would have been so large > that it would have heated the earth so much that life > could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a > million years ago all the present forms of life were > essentially as they are now, having completed their > evolution that began a THOUSAND million years ago. > > a) G.B. Lubkin, ''Analyses of Historical Data Suggest Sun > is Shrinking,'' PHYSICS TODAY, September 1979, pp. > 17-19. > b) David W. Dunham ET. AL., ''Observations of a Probable > Change in the Solar Radius Between 1715 and 1979,'' > SCIENCE, Vol.210, 12 December 1980, pp. 1243-1245. Hmm! Can't seem to escape the extrapolation fallacy now can we. Just because the Sun has been shrinking for a paltry 400 yrs is no reason to assume an unchanged rate in the past. In fact the inaccuracy of measurements prior to the last few decades makes high precision and accuracy in these rate estimates impossible. All we know is that the Sun *appears* to have been shrinking at *aproximately* the rate indicated. So many stars are pulsating variables that a cyclic pattern for the Sun is hardly extraordinary. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen