beervolcano
Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005
|
| Quote | | Our sun is a type G main sequence star with abundant heavy elements. Heavy elements are created in supernova explosions. Thus our sun must have been preceded by one or more generations of giant stars that formed, burned up their hydrogen fuel, and went out in a supernova explosion that formed and scattered heavy elements that later generation stars can incorporate when they form out of condensing gas clouds. Stellar evolution is fairly well understood and we can observe in real time all kinds of stars in all stages of their life cycles. It is impossible for our sun to have formed and matured to its current state in any kind of scale measured in thousands of years. The earth is billions of years of old. Get used to it. -ds |
WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution? The conclusions are drawn in very similar manners. He's got no problem with a big bang even though it's a huge extrapolation from observation. There is a fringe group of physicists who doubt the BB and use the same type of argumentation against it that the creationists use against evolution.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html
| Quote | | Needless to say, this suggestion that the Big Bang could not happen provoked the same exact reaction as the suggestion that the Earth might not be the center of everything. Instead of questioning the basic assumption, great effort was made to find a way to evolve the new data in terms acceptable to the assumption of a universe spawned in a single moment of creation. A complex Cosmology theory sprang up, encouraged by those invested in the "Big Bang" to explain why the basic foundational principles of physics behaved differently in the first few milliseconds of time. The math work is impressive, as impressive as that which supported the theory of the epicycles, but it is really just a polite way of saying "The rules just didn't apply when we need them not to apply". |
This is the same kind of reasoning that creationists use. I too don't think the BB or inflation are explanations set in stone. They just happen to be the best explanations we have of what we observe, just like the epicycles of ancient cosmology. Sure there are many gaps in the theory, just like there are gaps in evolutionary theory, but Dave accepts them wholeheartedly and wholeheartedly rejects the theory of evolution. WHY?
| Quote | | Our Solar System and planets have heavy elements (without which you would not be here) because at some time prior to the creation of our Solar System another star in the immediate vicinity exploded, creating the heavy elements and scattering them into the universe. Every star that explodes creates a planetary nebula, such as the one easily seen with amateur telescopes in the constellation Lyra. A planetary nebula is a bubble of debris in space, and given the presence of heavy elements in our own Solar System, then somewhere out in space there must be the tenuous remains of a billions of years old planetary nebula, the result of the not-so-very-big bang, viewable from our unique point of view near the center. This model of Earth lying at the center of the remains of a supernova predicts exactly the sort of structure that COBE found in the presumed Cosmic Background Radiation. But as was the case with Galileo and Bruno, challengers to the "approved" creation myths face a tough time, albeit funding cuts have replaced torture and being burned alive at the stake. |
Sound familiar?
--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)
|
