Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 30) Message-ID: <1612@dciem.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 18:02:27 EDT Article-I.D.: dciem.1612 Posted: Tue Jul 2 18:02:27 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jul-85 20:09:46 EDT References:Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Distribution: net Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 30 Summary: The rn program asks: This program posts news to everyone on the machine. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny] y I can't imagine why I answered "y" in this group, but there are idiocies that surpass understanding, here. For example: > 54. If stars evolve, we should see about as many star births > as star deaths. The deaths of stars are bright and sudden > events called ''novas'' and ''supernovas.'' Similarly, the > birth of a star should be accomplished by the appearance > of light where none previously existed on the many > photographic plates made decades earlier. Instruments > should also be able to detect dust falling into the new > star. We have NEVER seen a star born, but we have seen > thousands of stars die. There is no evidence that stars > evolve [a]. Some star deaths lead to novae, and some stars go nova several times. But to say we should see star birth by seeing light where none was visible "decades" ago is ridiculous. Star birth is observed in many ways, but most directly by infrared observation of the infalling dust clouds (that "instruments should also be able to detect", and can). See several recent issues of Scientific American, for example. (Or is it on the Index of books prohibited to Creationists?) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt