 |
DarwinTalk.com
Evolution Debate and Public Discussion Forum
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
moses's_bulldog
Labrador
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 312
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 9:31 am Post subject: Non-creationist astronomy failed |
 |
|
THE FAILURE OF NON-CREATIONIST ASTRONOMY
Below are some excellent quotes from that website which I believe shows the failure of non-creationist astronomy.
Planets:
| Quote: |
"The leading theory for giant planet formation has encountered a mortal blow, and the reaction is to put the theory on life support by invoking a physical phenomenon, core erosion, that had never before been raised." Alan Boss (evolutionary planetary theorist of the Carnegie Institution in Washington D.C.), New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p. 9.
“... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr who was proposing a new planetary formation model, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.
“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54.
"No one knows quite how planetesimals ever attain protoplanet status." (D. Kaisler, The puzzles of planethood, Sky & Telescope 104(2):32-38, 2002. [1]
“Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.” George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Astronomy_quotes
|
Stars:
| Quote: |
“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.
‘The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.’ - Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics quoted by Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998 [2]
“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... 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.
“In fact, given our current understanding of how stars form and the properties of the galactic center, it’s [stellar evolution near the galactic center is] not allowed to happen.” Andrea M. Gaze, as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Mystery in the Middle,” Science News, Vol. 163, 21 June 2003, p. 394.
“For example, no one can explain how the stars—which are 15 times heftier than our sun—got there [near the center of our galaxy]. According to most astronomical models, they are too big to have formed in the chaos of the galactic center but appear to be too young to have moved there from farther out.” Robert Irion, “The Milky Way’s Dark, Starving Pit,” (Science, Vol. 300, 30 May 2003, p. 1356 ).
Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds. It’s really remarkable.” Rogier A. Windhorst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, “A Matter of Timing,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, October 1992, p. 30.
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Astronomy_quotes
|
Non-creationist astronomy overall:
I will let readers decide how much explanatory power non-creationist astronomy has. 
CREATIONIST ASTRONOMY: A BETTER ALTERNATIVE
Here is an overview of creationist material regarding astronomy:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html
Last edited by moses's_bulldog on Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:20 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
solidsquid
Ferret
Joined: 17 May 2004
Posts: 108
Location: Victoria, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice cut and pastes and quote mines.
The complete paragraph from the Kerr article:
| Quote: | | Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries. As some monitoring records approach the requisite 12 years, Doppler detection of extrasolar Jupiters may not be far off. And searches are in the works for terrestrial-sized planets by looking for planets passing in front of their stars. But Tremaine remains cautious about what these searches will turn up. Speaking as a theorist, he notes that "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." |
The article is in reference to exoplanets and the insight they have given into the theory of planetary formation in the past few years with the confirmation of many large gas giants, like Jupiter, being found.
I don't know about the Jeffrey's quote since I don't have that book.
The next quote from Kerr (oddly all these are from the news page about research articles) in context:
| Quote: | | Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn--the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system's planetary mass--and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made. Of course, they formed from the infinitely more diffuse gas and dust of the solar nebula as the sun formed. But what could entice that much gas to condense into planets before it all dispersed in a million years or so? |
He goes on to discuss a paper printed in the journal on gas giant formation.
Basically your argument is pitiful. You have some quote mines, this does not invalidate astronomy. Try doing your own research instead of repeating the tripe perpetuated on creationist sites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moses's_bulldog
Labrador
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 312
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Solidsquid,
I do not believe the quotes were wrenched out of context and your fuller quotes I believe demonstrate this. But each reader will have to decide in their own mind.
With that being said, I do feel that if a person in a debate wishes to claim that a quote is wrenched out of context the burden of proof in a debate is always upon the claimant. I also feel that quoting is an accepted practice used by scholars. Thus, any claims of wrenched out of context quotes should not be upheld in a debate unless it is demonstrated.
Last edited by moses's_bulldog on Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2003
Posts: 1009
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Quote Mine Project
Just thought this might come in useful.
Honest quotation is not dishonest. Everyone does it all the time. However, when the quote is removed from its context specifically in order to distort the original intent of the author, then it is dishonest.
For example:
There is no God. Psalm 14:1
See? Even the Bible says that there is no God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidsquid
Ferret
Joined: 17 May 2004
Posts: 108
Location: Victoria, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | TO: Solidsquid
I do not believe the quotes were wrenched out of context and your fuller quotes I believe demonstrate this. But each reader will have to decide in their own mind.
With that being said, I do feel that if a person in a debate wishes to claim that a quote is wrenched out of context the burden of proof in a debate is always upon the claimant. I also feel that quoting is an accepted practice used by scholars. Thus, any claims of wrenched out of context quotes should not be upheld in a debate unless it is demonstrated. |
Your aim was that these quotes supposedly invalidate modern astronomy, this is not shown to be the case. You honestly think this supports your assertion and that is sad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moses's_bulldog
Labrador
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 312
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I updated the non-creationist astronomy failed quote list.
Here is the updated list:
Non-creationist astronomy failed
http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Astronomy_quotes
Last edited by moses's_bulldog on Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2003
Posts: 1009
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm. Sorry. Modern astronomy has come a long way since Galileo, and creationist quote-mining hasn't.
Drag everyone you can back into the 15th Century, MB. You'll need all the company you can get. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidsquid
Ferret
Joined: 17 May 2004
Posts: 108
Location: Victoria, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Instead of reading junk like that link, you should take the citations, find the original articles and read them. There are these wonderful structures called libraries that can assist you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
