|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2011 : 01:49:46
|
http://www.icr.org/articles/type/9/
Origins Breakthroughs of 2010: Astronomy
by Brian Thomas, M.S. | Jan. 7, 2011
Every year brings new scientific discoveries that shed light on the past. The Institute for Creation Research is dedicated to the study of origins from a biblical perspective, and ICR News has compiled what it considers to be the top findings related to origin studies from 2010. This article examines astronomy, and will be followed by a feature on breakthroughs on the genome.
Evidence against a Big Bang
The Big Bang is a proposed model for the origin of the cosmos that leaves no room for supernatural intervention into the created order. As a result, it is forced to violate the two universal laws of thermodynamics. By having matter appear out of nowhere, it violates the law of conservation of mass and energy. By having that matter self-organize into hot stars, galaxies, and superclusters—all while it should have been thinning out and cooling during eons of expansion—it violates the law of entropy.
In addition to these problems, a 2010 discovery contradicted the Big Bang prediction that galaxies should look younger the farther out into space they appear from earth. The "mature" galactic clusters are only supposed to exist close-in, but more were discovered in the far distance this past year, adding to similar observations from prior years.1
Also, a study of 900 quasars posed a serious challenge to another assumption common among astronomers.2 Shifting of starlight toward the red, low-energy end of the light spectrum, called "redshifting," is supposed to be an effect of the expansion of the universe. Some of the very massive, bright, and very distant quasars showed identical light-travel time patterns but very different redshift values. If qualities like mass can shift light to the red, then redshift measurements alone may not be as reliable in providing accurate distance or Big Bang time estimates as once thought. These quasars alone imply that the Big Bang hypothesis rests on shaky ground.
Young Comets
If the solar system is really billions of years old, then its comets should no longer exist because they lose mass every time they pass around the sun. In 2010, the comet problem worsened for those insisting on such an old age. Close-up photographs of a special comet named Hartley 2 showed that it is spewing snow into space through multiple fissures.3 This comet not only looks young by its size, which has not yet been completely whittled down by the sun, but it now looks even younger because of the extraordinary internal activity that is causing it to lose even more material.
Many long-age comet proponents think that an unobserved cloud of distant icy objects periodically and accidentally supplies the solar system with comets. But a 2010 study admitted that this idea is totally inadequate to explain the comets currently in orbit. A replacement concept was offered proposing that long ago the sun "robbed" comets from ancient stars.4 However, not only was this even less plausible than the first idea, but it only pushes the origin of comets further back in time, ultimately explaining nothing.
Conclusion
Comets and their orbits look like special creations, and they look younger than ever because of 2010's closer-than-ever view of one of them. Certainly they were designed to "be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."5 The Big Bang concept, already fully bankrupted, now has more explaining to do than ever before. The universe looks fully mature, as would be expected in a completed creation.6 And the fully mature galactic clusters near the outer edge show that the cosmos was intentionally created.
References
1. Thomas, B. Distant Galactic Cluster Should Not Exist. ICR News. Posted on icr.org May 21, 2010, accessed December 28, 2010.
2. Thomas, B. Quasars Quash Big Bang Assumption. ICR News. Posted on icr.org April 29, 2010, accessed December 28, 2010.
3. Thomas, B. NASA Photographs Young Comet. ICR News. Posted on icr.org. November 12, 2010, accessed December 28, 2010.
4. Thomas, B. New Comet Origins Idea Adds New Problems. ICR News. Posted on icr.org December 9, 2010, accessed December 28, 2010.
5. Genesis 1:14.
6. Morris, J. 2010. Creation with the Appearance of Age. Acts & Facts. 39 (12): 15.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 02:08:33 [Permalink]
|
Welp. It's good to see you Doorar. But it's late and I don't have time to address your OP. No doubt others will before I wake up tomorrow.
But before I go, let me remind you that, as you probably know, most, if not all of us take a pretty dim view of the ICR. Without going into specifics, I think it's fair to also remind you that in order to be a "scientist" for the ICR one must sign a statement of faith that includes affirming that the story told in genesis is a factually and historically accurate account of the beginnings of everything. You must swear that every word of it must be taken literally, or you don't get to do "science" for the ICR. What that means is that they are willing to twist, torture or simply ignore any evidence contrary to a literal take on the genesis account of creation because if the evidence for evolution, cosmology, geology, or whatever it is doesn't support the bible, than it must be wrong.
That is not science. That's apologetics.
Good night... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 02:19:07 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, but things like the Oort cloud are established fact; they do supply comets. Then there is the Kuiper Belt.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm
http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/53391.aspx
Is this "2010 study" just another ICR bullshit piece?
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 02:44:18 [Permalink]
|
Fundamentalists hate the "big bang" theory as well as any and all scientific theories dealing with origins such as evolution. Logically, one would think that religious people would be delighted with such concepts and use them to reinforce their myths and beliefs and perhaps a few occasionally do, but fundies don't. The reason might be because they can only conceive of science as a rival religion, which it is not. That might be why they often ask: "Do you believe in..." (evolution, the big bang, etc...)
|
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2011 : 05:41:31 [Permalink]
|
Hey Doomar! Welcome back! Long time, no hear from; howzit goin', bro?
Okay, I don't know; you don't know; ICR certainly doesn't know; Phil Platt and the scientists at NASA don't know, either. It is conceivable that we'll never know, not for sure.
That said, the Big Bang is the best hypothesis put forth thus far. I repeat: thus far! Research by legitimate scientists continues relentlessly on. The beautiful thing about it is that, while looking for evidence on the orgins of the universe, a great deal of other cosmological knowledge is gained.
As this is a little out of my own field of study, I'll leave others more knowledgable than I to comment further. Again, welcome back!
Edited to add that Mr. Thomas uses only himself and Morris for reference. That is not reassuring.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 01/08/2011 05:53:41 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 11:16:19 [Permalink]
|
What is interesting is that to ME there appears to have been a big bang because we can observe the universe expanding yet today.
Doomar (actually the article, I guess) is correct in that had the bang exploded in this universe, it would have violated the 1st law of thermodynamics which translates into the law of conservation of matter: Matter can never be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed.
OK, but it would not have violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics (what they mistakenly call the law of entropy): with any spontaneous reaction, matter will go to a more disordered state.
The key word in that definition is "spontaneous." That is a term of chemistry that means energy did not drive the reaction. But energy would have most certainly have driven the big bang, so that would not have been governed by the 2nd law.
But this is all a conundrum to the max if we examine it logically.
Newton tells us that objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force. The universe is in motion, so SOME force had to have put it into motion, but it is scientifically impossible that the force came from inside our universe.
Our universe consists of 4 primary dimensions, height, width, depth and time.
Time can be defined as matter moving in relationship to other matter and we can measure this with nothing more elaborate than a sundial. So, before the universe was created, there could have been no spacial dimensions in which matter or anything else could have existed and since there was no matter to move, there could have been no time for ANYTHING to exist in.
So much for that primeval, energy infinite, atom that existed in this universe to explode into a big bang. Nothing could have been here because there WAS no universe.
This logically extrapolates to: the energy that caused the explosion came from outside this universe.
Could that energy have been quantum mechanics acting in the black hole of another universe reaching the singularity level as Hawking has mused? Could have been, I guess. And I guess you can call that God if one wishes to, as well.
|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 13:15:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Okay, I don't know; you don't know; ICR certainly doesn't know; Phil Platt and the scientists at NASA don't know, either. It is conceivable that we'll never know, not for sure.
|
Eh! The ICR does know, they claim! The Bible tells them so. So responding to anything the ICR does or says is fruitless or to put it Biblically 'will bare no fruit'. They are clearly deluded. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 15:20:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Doomar (actually the article, I guess) is correct in that had the bang exploded in this universe, it would have violated the 1st law of thermodynamics which translates into the law of conservation of matter: Matter can never be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed. |
Actually the first law says energy cannot be created or destroyed. Matter cetainly can be destroyed in a nuclear reaction. Also, I think someone has converted energy into matter as well.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
| Edited by - Robb on 01/08/2011 15:23:00 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 16:14:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by JerryB
Doomar (actually the article, I guess) is correct in that had the bang exploded in this universe, it would have violated the 1st law of thermodynamics which translates into the law of conservation of matter: Matter can never be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed. |
Actually the first law says energy cannot be created or destroyed. Matter cetainly can be destroyed in a nuclear reaction. Also, I think someone has converted energy into matter as well.
|
I think so, and I think his name was Albert Einstein.....
Matter and energy are the same thing, just different expressions of one another. For example electricity can manifest as a wave of energy that can be measured by an oscilloscope, or solids in the form of electrons--matter.
E=MC^2 shows that energy equals the mass of matter times the speed of light squared. The two terms can be interchanged when we are discussing them in this context. However, you are right the first law is technically known as the law of conservation of energy (when it is taught in schools) so I misspoke on that.
But the matter you say is destroyed in nuclear reactions is simply converted to energy. It is not destroyed at all. It's kinda like a guy getting a sex change operation. He changes, but he still goes on, just as a different expression of himself......a woman...*wink*
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 17:01:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Newton tells us that objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force. The universe is in motion, so SOME force had to have put it into motion, but it is scientifically impossible that the force came from inside our universe.
|
LMFAO! Einstein would be spinning in his grave, and had you been in the same room as Hawkings, he'd rush up and slap you in the face. 
Quoting Newton for Big Bang... I'm laughing so hard my tears are gushing, and I'm getting a stomach ache.
MAN! You really are a hoot. This trumps the Solid Iron Sphere Surface of the Sun guy by a mile!
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 17:08:24 [Permalink]
|
Jerry I must admit that I've misjudged you.
Originally posted by JerryB
For example electricity can manifest as a wave of energy that can be measured by an oscilloscope, or solids in the form of electrons--matter.
|
I'm laughing so hard I'm almost pissing my pants.
You're not a creationist, nor an IDist.
You're a comedian!
We've all been had.
Jerry played a prank on us, and we fell for it.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 18:16:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
For example electricity can manifest as a wave of energy that can be measured by an oscilloscope, or solids in the form of electrons--matter. |
This quote demonstrates a seriously fundamental misunderstanding of electricity, oscilloscopes and wave-particle duality. A trifecta of ignorance. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 18:24:35 [Permalink]
|
LOL...You people are hilarious......I never get one intelligent comment back as to WHY electricity is NOT a wave-particle duality and can therefore be viewd as either matter or energy I only get comments as in the above. Or as Doc says, I am a comedian. No logic--bunk high school math--ignorant of the way the greats of science have used it.
I LOVE playing with the intellects of old guys pretending to be intellectuals....... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 18:40:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
LOL...You people are hilarious......I never get one intelligent comment back as to WHY electricity is NOT a wave-particle duality... |
You don't seem interested in anything but arrogant mockery, so why should we invest the time and effort to try to teach you? Oscilloscopes measure the bulk stochastic properties of gazillions of electrons at once (even a microamp of current requires that over a trillion electrons pass a scope probe per second). Macroscopic properties, not quantum properties. Or perhaps you'd like to show me the quantum basis for voltage and amperage, and how they can be measured without collapsing the wave function of every electron within the current?| ...and can therefore be viewd as either matter or energy... |
Individual electrons cannot even be viewed as particles or waves, but must be viewed as both at once. Furthermore, since E=mc2, you're not looking at "matter or energy," anyway. Electrons are packets of energy, the "little billiard balls" model is just a metaphor.| I LOVE playing with the intellects of old guys pretending to be intellectuals....... |
You're laughing at yourself again, kid. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 18:41:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
LOL...You people are hilarious......I never get one intelligent comment back as to WHY electricity is NOT a wave-particle duality and can therefore be viewd as either matter or energy I only get comments as in the above. Or as Doc says, I am a comedian. No logic--bunk high school math--ignorant of the way the greats of science have used it.
I LOVE playing with the intellects of old guys pretending to be intellectuals.......
|
Right.
Now sonny, when are we going to see how the fossil record supports ID?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 21:53:18 [Permalink]
|
Did I ever tell you guys I am only 28 years old?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Big Bang Bankrupt
