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!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 30)
Message-ID: <528@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 21:31:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.528
Posted: Mon Jul  1 21:31:45 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 09:25:53 EDT
References: <381@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 75
Summary: 

In article <381@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.
>
>       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].
>
	Actually, only supernovas are star deaths, ordinary novas are
just major light bersts that leave the star relatively unchanged. Thus
we have *not* seen thousands of star deaths, only a few hundred, and
by far most of these were far away, in other galaxies, where we could
not expect to see star births at all. In this galaxy we have seen
fewer than a dozen supernovas since the dawn of history, thousands of
years ago, thus we only need to see a new star every several hundred
years, not several per decade, to account for supernovas.
	Furthermore, we are even now watching several objects which
appear to be new stars in formation, and after a few hundred years we
should be able to tell if they are in fact destined to become stars.
In fact these objects are characterized by the detection of dust/gas
falling in to a small compact "nebula". In addition, we have found a
number of unusual stars that appear to be new born, including such
well known stars as the Pleiedes.
>
>       55.  Stellar evolution is assumed  in  estimating  the  age  of
>            stars.  These  age  estimates are then used to establish a
>            framework  for  stellar  evolution.   This   is   circular
>            reasoning [a].
>
	You are leaving out the most important source of concepts
about stellar evolution - theoretical physics. Much of the modern
theory of stellar evolution is based on mathematical models of the
processes in the cores of stars, *not* on estimated ages as this
implies. The other main source is the Herzsprung-Russel Diagram,
which is a simple graph of "color"/temperature against intrinsic
brightness(again not an age estimate). These two sources are then
combined to produce age estimates, but *only* of clusters, not of
individual stars. Only the Sun is close enough to us to provide
enough evidence for an individual age estimate
>
>       56.  There is no evidence that galaxies evolve from one type to
>            another  [a,b].   Furthermore, if galaxies are billions of
>            years old, orbital mechanics  requires  that  neither  the
>            arms  in  spiral  galaxies  nor  the  bar in barred spiral
>            galaxies should have been able to  have  maintained  their
>            shape [c].  Since they have maintained their shape, either
>            galaxies are young,  or  unknown  physical  phenomena  are
>            occurring within galaxies [d,e].
>

	Agreed, there is no evidence that galaxies evolve from on type
to another, and no astronomer today would say otherwise. To repeat
myself, spiral arms are held to be dynamic structures, continually
reformed by the formation of hot, new stars(this is an alternative not
mentioned above - a *known* physical phenomenon)
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

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