Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 25) Message-ID: <957@mhuxt.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 10:08:43 EDT Article-I.D.: mhuxt.957 Posted: Wed Jun 19 10:08:43 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 08:57:34 EDT References: <374@iham1.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 98 > II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > Finally! I've been waiting so long to see what kind of evidence Ron was going to show us for this absurd proposition! > A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR > SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY > INADEQUATE. > What's this? He's not going to present evidence for this absurd proposition? Apparently he's going to go this route: 'If current theories concerning the origin of the solar system can't explain absolutely everything then the only alternative is that it was created. Recently.' It's obvious that this is a total non-sequitor. Since any reasonable person would be too embarassed to post such idiocy, we have gained further insight into the warped and bizarre nature of creationist 'reasoning'. > Many undisputed observations of our solar system contradict > the current theories on how the solar system evolved [a-c]. > According to these evolutionary theories: > 38. All 49 moons in our solar system should revolve in the > same direction, but at least six revolve backwards [d,e]. > Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have > moons going in both directions. > > 39. The orbits of these 49 moons should all lie in the > equatorial plane of the planet they orbit, but many, > including the earth's moon, are in highly inclined orbits > [d]. The references given for these statements correctly state which direction various bodies rotate in, I'm sure. But where do they say that the moons and planets 'should' rotate in the same directions, or that all orbital planes should coincide exactly with equatorial planes? Can you say 'asteroid capture' or 'near miss'?? Also, the statement (39) as given, is false. 'Many [of the moons] are in highly inclined orbits.' Not unless one considers 10 degrees or less to be 'highly inclined'. > > 40. The material of the earth (as well as Mars, Venus, and > Mercury) should almost all be hydrogen and helium--similar > to that of the sun and rest of the visible universe; > actually much less than 1% of the earth's mass is hydrogen > or helium [d,e]. This is rich. I'm willing to bet that this is a deliberate lie. No current theory for the origion of the solar system that I've ever heard of suggests that the composition of the earth should be nearly all hydrogen and helium. Just how do you suggest that a planet the size (or mass) of the earth formed mostly of hydrogen would be prevented from outgassing nearly all of the hydrogen very quickly? To suggest that real physicists propound such an untenable and ridiculous hypothesis and to expect that we'll blindly believe you is very nearly as stupid as it is dishonest. Oh, and as to the reference which apparently goes with this: > e) ''First, we see that material torn from the Sun would > not be at all suitable for the formation of the > planets as we know them. Its composition would be > hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this > contrast is that it is the Sun that is normal and the > Earth that is the freak. The interstellar gas and most > of the stars are composed of material like the Sun, > not like the earth. You must understand that, > cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in > is made of the wrong stuff. You, yourself, are a > rarity. You are a cosmic collector's piece.'' [Fred > Hoyle, ''The Nature of the Universe,'' Part IV, > HARPER'S MAGAZINE, March 1951, p. 65.] It states that most of the material which exists in the universe is mostly hydrogen, helium, etc., in plasma phase, and that very little of the material in the universe is composed of heavier elements at cooler temperatures. True enough. This would be puzzling if not for the existance of obvious mechanisms for concentrating heavy elements (formed during previous stellar generations) into the planets of a forming solar system. In fact, only the very largest planets should be capable of retaining very much hydrogen or helium at all as a gas. > > d) R. A. Lyttleton, MYSTERIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, 6th > edition (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. > 16. And in order to show that current theories don't explain everything, Ron feels a need to dig out 17 year old texts to find 'current' theories to debunk! Not too suprising. You missed another piece of evidence for the youth of the universe which is every bit as good as the others, Ron. 42.) According to current theories, the earth should be the center of the universe, and everything else should revolve around it. In fact, it isn't. [d,e,x] x) Aristotle. "Only a fool argues with fools." And unless temptation strikes too hard someday, I don't think you'll be hearing too much more from me around here. Bye. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I went down to the Scrub and Rub, but I had to sit in the back of the tub." - Dylan