| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pahu" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2007 03:54:22 PM |
| Object: |
Science Disproves Evolution |
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 1
Evolutionists claim that stars form from swirling clouds of dust and
gas. For this to happen, vast amounts of energy, angular momentum, and
residual magnetism must be removed from each cloud. This is not
observed today, and astronomers and physicists have been unable to
explain, in an experimentally verifiable way, how it all could happen
(a).
The most luminous stars in our galaxy, called O stars, are "burning
fuel" hundreds of thousands of times more rapidly than our Sun. This
is so rapid that they must be quite young on an evolutionary time
scale. If these stars evolved, they should show easily measurable
characteristics such as extremely high rates of rotation and enormous
magnetic fields. Because these characteristics are not observed, it
seems quite likely these stars did not evolve.
a. "The universe we see when we look out to its furthest horizons
contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains
another hundred billion stars. That's 10^22 stars all told. The silent
embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a
single one of these stars managed to form." Martin Harwit, Book
Reviews, Science, Vol. 231, 7 March 1986, pp. 1201-1202.
Harwit also lists three formidable objections to all modern theories
of star formation:
i. "The contracting gas clouds must radiate energy in order to
continue their contraction; the potential energy that is liberated in
this pre-stellar phase must be observable somehow, but we have yet to
detect and identify it.
ii. "The angular momentum that resides in typical interstellar
clouds is many orders of magnitude higher than the angular momentum we
compute for the relatively slowly spinning young stars; where and how
has the protostar shed that angular momentum during contraction?
iii. "Interstellar clouds are permeated by magnetic fields that
we believe to be effectively frozen to the contracting gas; as the gas
cloud collapses to form a star, the magnetic field lines should be
compressed ever closer together, giving rise to enormous magnetic
fields, long before the collapse is completed. These fields would
resist further collapse, preventing the formation of the expected
star; yet we observe no evidence of strong fields, and the stars do
form, apparently unaware of our theoretical difficulties."
Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are
Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate
http://www.creationscience.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Davej" |
|
| Title: Re: Science is Naturalism, Get Over It |
28 Aug 2007 05:25:00 PM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 3:54 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Star Births? Stellar Evolution?
Evolutionists claim that stars form from swirling clouds of dust and
gas. [...]
If Martin Harwit or Walt Brown say it couldn't have happened
__naturally__ then they are operating outside of science. There are
plenty of great unknowns in science. These unknowns don't go away when
some fool screeches "goddidit!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
30 Aug 2007 12:20:20 AM |
|
|
Pahu wrote:
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 1
Evolutionists claim that stars form from swirling clouds of dust and
gas.
Wrong. Astronomers make this claim.
The rest of teh stuff is wrong also.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
