1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Non- young universe creationist astronomy failed

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by kendemyer, Jun 22, 2005.

Top Posters
  1. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    THE FAILURE OF NON- YOUNG UNIVERSE CREATIONIST ASTRONOMY


    Below are some excellent quotes from that website which I believe shows the failure of non-creationist astronomy.


    Planets and our solar system

    “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.

    “To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.” Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution, 6th edition (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 3


    More regarding the Planets:


    “Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn—the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass—and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.” Richard A. Kerr, “A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns,” Science, Vol. 298, 29 November 2002, p. 1698.

    “In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, [what evolutionists believe is] the lifetime of the solar system. ‘Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ‘We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’ ” Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,” Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054.


    “It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54.

    “‘We came to the conclusion,’ says Lissauer, ‘that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, [the observed] prograde rotation just can’t be explained.’ The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day.” Richard A. Kerr, “Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets,” Science, Vol. 258, 23 October 1992, p. 548.

    “Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.” George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.


    The moon:

     
    #1 kendemyer, Jun 22, 2005
  2. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    TO: ALL

    I revised my initial post and added some information regarding the Big Bang theory because I thought it would be helpful.
     
    #2 kendemyer, Jun 22, 2005
  3. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    #3 Grasshopper, Jun 22, 2005
  4. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the other hand, there is no denying that the planets are, in fact, there. There is no denying they date back to the billions of years. Why, the time for Jupiter to gravitationally sweep out the kirkwood lanes in the asteroid belt alone has been shown to require more than a million years.

    There is no creationist explanation for Jupiter and Saturn, either! There is no possible REASON for them to exist out there, uninhabited, not affecting the earth in any way . . . . except, of course, they are key in clearing out rogue debris and making the local earth environment relatively safe from asteroid and comet environment. Not over a measely 10,000 years, of course, but over millions, they have functioned to make our neighborhood safer.

    PS. Why do you think it is necessary for science to have an explanation for everything all the way in order for any part to be valid?

    Isn't it possible that before scientists finally know everything like you seem to think they should have to, there would be an intermediate period when they would know some things and not others? What's wrong with finding ourselves in just such a period?

    Finally, can you say what's exactly wrong with the idea that stars form from condensing steller clouds of gas? I mean, surely there must be some signifigant empediment, or those words you quoted don't mean anything. What's to stop them?
     
    #4 Paul of Eugene, Jun 23, 2005
  5. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's a link to a picture where the astronomers are under the impression that they are looking at a solar system nursery, where stars are actually experiencing the condensation of material around them.

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap961207.html
     
    #5 Paul of Eugene, Jun 23, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...