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