Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Controversy over Creation Astronomy? Did the Universe Evolve?

As often mentioned before on this blog, Darwinists have no explanation for anything at all.   They have no explanation for existence coming into existence, they have no explanation for life coming from non-life and they have no explanation for the massive amounts of information needed to build a simple cell.   They do not have any foundational answers and they never will.

God created.   It is the logical reason for the Universe and does not require massive amounts of fudge factors, you simply need to accept that a Creator/Designer God Who transcends time and space invented time and space.   Where did God come from?  There WAS no THERE until God invented it!   When did God come into existence?   Well, Jesus is God come to Earth in the flesh so somewhere near 3 BC the Son of God limited Himself to existence.   But God is not actually confined by time or space, they were constructed by Him and He can put an end to it all when He decides the time has come.  

Darwinists play a shell game with the concept of evolution.   No one doubts that change happens over time (in fact change is an integral part of time passage) but it is the direction of change where disagreement occurs. While the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that the Universe had a finite start and is heading to an ending while going "downhill" from energy to entropy or order to disorder, Darwinism asserts that everything actually goes in the opposite direction.   Organisms come from inorganic materials and become incredibly complex and the entire Universe came from nothing and exploded into everything.   There, I have summarized Darwinism neatly.   They will expand this exponentially by burying you with BS in order to avoid the underlying truths that there is no way for either the Universe or organisms to happen by chance.   You do not think Darwinists believe evolution applies to the Universe?   We'll let Spike Psarris provide some proof:


Controversy over Creation Astronomy

As creationists have revealed the bankruptcy of the secular origin models, a growing number of atheists are trying to fight back.

Some are attacking me specifically, especially for applying the word “evolution” to astronomy. I frequently get messages like this one (actual quote):
“Umm, dude… EVOLUTION has NOTHING to do with COSMOLOGY! Quit lying for Jeebus!”
For obvious reasons, I don't bother replying to people like that.
But I did reply when a prominent astronomer said basically the same thing.
See for yourself if somebody is lying -- and if so, who it is.

(Radar - I post that link below as the second part of the argument from Spike)

Other accusations

Other critics accuse me of distorting the truth about astronomy. As time permits, I'll be adding articles to this site to refute them.

Meanwhile, if you come across any of their accusations, look at it with a discerning eye.

Notice how much of it is merely name-calling. This is a tactic that goes back to the ancient Greeks. When you've lost an argument, you try to discredit your opponent by attacking him personally.

Also notice that some of the critics (the honest ones, anyway) will admit that their models have serious problems. But then they'll appeal to future discoveries -- they believe that the problems will be solved in the future.

Of course, appealing to something that hasn't happened is not a scientific statement. It's a statement of faith.

A few of the lesser-informed critics say that I'm wrong, because the secular models work just fine, thank you very much. But they shouldn't be criticizing me -- they should attack all the secular scientists who work on the models. Those are the people I'm quoting to show that the models don't work.

Next, some of the critics claim I'm wrong, because I talk about some problem that the secular model has now solved.

Actually, I'm not surprised that one or two problems have (supposedly) been solved recently. (As I write this, it's possible that the core-accretion model for Jupiter might be modified to accomodate its apparent lack of a core. I spent about 30 seconds or so on this issue in the video.)

After all, the secular model is a lot of story-telling with only a little science mixed in. And stories can be changed on a whim.

So if my DVD discussed a problem that has been 'solved' since the DVD came out, does that mean I'm a liar? No. It just means the secular model changed... again.

(It's not my fault if the evolutionists keep changing their minds about their "truth".)

Also, if I list dozens of fatal problems with the secular model, and they solve one or two, does that mean the secular model is viable now?

Obviously not.

Lastly, what the atheists aren't telling you is that some of the so-called 'solutions' are worse than the original problems.

For example, some student in the UK made a video that claimed I'm wrong about Mercury causing problems for the secular model. He appealed to a new model that showed how Mercury formed from primordial planetesimals (asteroids) and then something else happened, blah blah blah.

What he did not mention is that the secular model says that planetesimals couldn't form into planets… including Mercury. So Mercury shouldn't exist.

Hmm. Why do you suppose he left that part out?

As another example, in my DVD I show how the secular model predicts that Uranus and Neptune can't exist. Obviously, they do.

Well, a recent 'solution' to this problem was announced in New Scientist. Supposedly, all the giant planets originally formed elsewhere -- not where they are today.

Then after about 700 million years of stability, Jupiter and Saturn suddenly started "playing pinball with Uranus", batting it back and forth several times before throwing it out to its current orbit. Then Jupiter and Saturn moved too.

In other words, the Solar System as we see it today contradicts the secular model.

To rescue the model, scientists are making up stories about how things used to be different, and then planets started playing pinball with each other.

Is this science? No, it's storytelling. Not even good storytelling, at that.

Sadly, this is what is being taught as 'truth' today.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


“Evolution Has Nothing To Do With Astronomy”

Am I a liar for applying the word “evolution” to astronomy?

Phil Plait, the “Bad Astronomer” who blogs for Discover magazine, says so in a recent post about my Solar System video.

Quoting Phil:
“I watched the Jupiter video until all I could hear was a loud buzzing
sound punctuated by the word “evolution”. Last I recall, evolution was
the change in allele frequency over time… Jupiter has chromosomes?
Are creationists that confused?
“Well, certainly many are, but why ascribe to ignorance what can be
ascribed to misdirection? The creator of the video obviously uses the
word evolution over and over again because it’s a buzzword likely to
sway people predisposed against science to agree with the bizarre
version of reality he espouses, even though he must know that evolution
has nothing to do with astronomy.
“Hmmm. Bear false witness much?”
Phil is calling me a false witness — a liar — for applying the word “evolution” to astronomy.
But as an astronomer, surely Phil knows that the word “evolution” is used constantly in astronomy — not to describe biological change, but to describe the naturalistic formation and development of celestial objects.
Surely Phil knows that countless astrophysics books present models for the “evolution” of stars:
Evolution of Stars
and Stellar Populations
(by Maurizio Salaris
and Santi Cassisi)
Physics, Formation
and Evolution
of Rotating Stars

(by André Maeder)
Stellar Structure
and Evolution

(by Rudolf Kippenhahn
and Alfred Weigert)
And galaxies:
The Structure and
Evolution of Galaxies

(by Steven Phillipps)
The Chemical Evolution
of the Galaxy

(by F. Matteucci )
Nucleosynthesis and
Chemical Evolution
of Galaxies

(by Bernard E. J. Pagel)
And planets:
Planets and Their Atmos-
pheres, Volume 33:
Origins and Evolution

(by John S. Lewis
and Ronald G. Prinn)
A Comparison of the
Dynamical Evolution of
Planetary Systems

(by R. Dvorak and
S. Ferraz-Mello, Eds.)
Solar System Evolution:
A New Perspective

 

(by Stuart Ross Taylor)
In addition, Phil no doubt keeps up with the scientific literature that is full of this usage too. As I write this (June 2009), the current issue of the Astronomical Journal alone has 3 papers using “evolution” or “evolved” in their titles.

In the astronomical literature, the word “evolution” is everywhere.

So, why does Phil say “evolution has nothing to do with astronomy”?

Well, when your gun is out of bullets, you have to shoot blanks.

There’s a debating tactic that’s as old as the ancient Greeks. When your opponent is correct and you can’t refute his arguments, you use an ad hominem attack instead.

You smear his character. Mock and ridicule him personally. Call him a liar, even when you know he’s correct. Anything to cover up the fact that he’s right.

In my video, I document the failure of the standard evolutionary model for our Solar System. Among other things, this model predicts that Jupiter can’t exist (but it does), Saturn can’t exist either (ditto), Uranus and Neptune shouldn’t have formed at all (but there they are), Mercury and Ganymede shouldn’t have magnetic fields (even though they do), Titan should have a global ocean of methane and ethane if it were really billions of years old (but it doesn’t)… the list goes on and on.

But Phil doesn’t address any of that. Instead, the person who once wrote that “Stellar evolution [is] the process by which a star is born, lives out its life, and dies,” calls me a liar by insisting that “Evolution has nothing to do with astronomy… Bear false witness much?”

Reader, you can decide for yourself if there’s a false witness here — and if so, who it is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Indeed, reader, you can spend a small amount of money in order to get a great deal of information culled from several decades of space ventures from the beginning of the space program to very recent images from Hubble.   If you do not fear truth and want to know?   Keep in mind that the US Space program was started and headed up by an avowed creationist, Werner Von Braun and many creationists have worked or do work in the program.   Spike Psarris was in the space program and he knows his stuff!!

I get multiple technical journals, magazines and newsletters concerning Creation Science and Intelligent Design.  I monitor multiple websites.  I purchase lots of books and have also grabbed lots of videos from various sources.  Spike's DVDs are not only very clear and well-documented, they are presentations of beauty and also incorporate a bit of humor.   I recommend them highly!

Right now Spike has two videos out and more on the way.   Logically you would want to view the Solar System video first and then the Stars and Galaxies video.   I purchased them and my main message to Spike has been "We can't wait for the next one!"   So Spike?  If you read this, hurry up because WE WANT MORE!!!

How to get them?   Just go to this website and it will look just like this, below:  



What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy, Volume II
Our Created Stars and Galaxies
NTSC Widescreen DVD (with optional English subtitles for the hearing-impaired). Playing time: 63 minutes.
Price: $15  
 





What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy, Volume I
Our Created Solar System
NTSC Widescreen DVD (with optional English subtitles for the hearing-impaired). Playing time: 105 minutes.
Price: $15  
 


No comments: