Astronomical evolution anyone?

[Scotishfury09]

I understand that the theory of evolution applies to biology, but I was just wondering (seeing how this is origins thread and not the evolution thread ) if anyone likes to talk about the evolution of astronomy and cosmology rather than biology? I appreciate the debate on evolution, but being an astrophysics major I find astronomy to be more appealing.

I guess I don't really have a starting topic, I just wanted to see if there was anyone here who would like to talk about it instead of biology.

 

[Jadis40]

I understand that the theory of evolution applies to biology, but I was just wondering (seeing how this is origins thread and not the evolution thread ) if anyone likes to talk about the evolution of astronomy and cosmology rather than biology? I appreciate the debate on evolution, but being an astrophysics major I find astronomy to be more appealing.

I guess I don't really have a starting topic, I just wanted to see if there was anyone here who would like to talk about it instead of biology.

The process of stellar formation and stellar evolution and the length of time a star like our sun remains on the main sequence is, and has been, one the chief reasons I reject a literal 24-hour/6-day creation event with a 6000 year old earth. (The second reason being is I hold a degree in history, and a flood in 2348 requires a massive rewrite of world history, which simply isn't credible, given the archaeological finds that date past 4004 BC. Ussher's chronology, to put it mildly, is extremely flawed.) I've held the belief in an earth that is around 4.6 billion years old ever since I first picked up a book on astronomy at the local library back in elementary school. I was fascinated by what I read about pulsars and quasars and black holes. I firmly believe in the big bang as the means by which God created the universe. Up until, I'd say, 4 or 5 year ago, I didn't even know the age of the earth was even something that people debated.

 

[busterdog]

I understand that the theory of evolution applies to biology, but I was just wondering (seeing how this is origins thread and not the evolution thread ) if anyone likes to talk about the evolution of astronomy and cosmology rather than biology? I appreciate the debate on evolution, but being an astrophysics major I find astronomy to be more appealing.

I guess I don't really have a starting topic, I just wanted to see if there was anyone here who would like to talk about it instead of biology.

There are a number of interesting problems with old universe celestial mechanics.

This is one of those "eyeballing" problems. That is, the sun is big, so people assume it must be old.

Covention admits that it just doesn't have a clear picture about how planets and stars formed. Period.

Any number of anamolies exist that cannot be explained with certainty. Why do short period comets still exist? How is the 11 inch per year recession of the moon accounted for in such an old solar system? Why do some planets have magnetic fields and others none? How does Jupiter have an 11 hour day? Why aren't Saturns rings dirty from millenia of dust? How is the angular momentum of the various planets so radically given their allegedly common nebular birth? Neptune is turned 90 degress on its axis of revolution, yet it has a nearly perfectly circular orbit -- how is that possible?

 

[busterdog]

Ussher's chronology, to put it mildly, is extremely flawed.)

I am all for tossing flawed concepts. Most theories of planetary formation are flawed.

Remember, this is not a beauty pageant. We don't just keep the best looking theory and call it a day. That there is no better math for YEC planetary formation does not mean that TE convention isn;t full of improbabilities.

 

[Mallon]

Any number of anamolies exist that cannot be explained with certainty. Why do short period comets still exist? How is the 11 inch per year recession of the moon accounted for in such an old solar system? Why do some planets have magnetic fields and others none? How does Jupiter have an 11 hour day? Why aren't Saturns rings dirty from millenia of dust? How is the angular momentum of the various planets so radically given their allegedly common nebular birth? Neptune is turned 90 degress on its axis of revolution, yet it has a nearly perfectly circular orbit -- how is that possible?

Most of those questions are answered here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CE

 

[Scotishfury09]

What about the fact that the only reliable theory on how our solar system came into being (Nebula Theory) shows that both Neptune and Uranus shouldn't be there. Or the fact that Uranus's axis is tilted 90 degrees. The only explanation is that an asteroid hit it and caused it to tilt, but it still has one of the most circular orbits in the solar system.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Apparently the feedback isn't working for that site right now. D=

 

[LewisWildermuth]

What about the fact that the only reliable theory on how our solar system came into being (Nebula Theory) shows that both Neptune and Uranus shouldn't be there. Or the fact that Uranus's axis is tilted 90 degrees. The only explanation is that an asteroid hit it and caused it to tilt, but it still has one of the most circular orbits in the solar system.

That is interesting, I use to follow astronomy quite closely but I have never heard of these, could you like me to a scientific site on this?

 

[pgp_protector]

11 Inchs per year ressession ?
Isn't that like 7.3X more than what it is (1.5" Per year) ?
http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/our_solar_system/the_moon/facts.html


EDIT:
at 1.5" Per year it takes 42,240 Years for it to move 1 Mile (1,008,902,400 years for the last 10% (23,885 Miles) Of it's orbit*)
at 11" Per Year it takes 5,760 Years for it to move 1 Mile. (137,416,320 years for the last 10% (23,885 Miles) Of its orbit*)

Approximate Distance from Earth to Moon 238,857 Miles
*Assuming constant Ressission Velocity.

 

[Scotishfury09]

The second reason being is I hold a degree in history, and a flood in 2348 requires a massive rewrite of world history, which simply isn't credible, given the archaeological finds that date past 4004 BC. Ussher's chronology, to put it mildly, is extremely flawed.

I don't really want to start a new debate on archeology, but what all finds are recorded as before then? I had read that, due to some studies in archeomagnetism, most of the dynasties in Egypt should actually be more recent than what was previously recorded.

I'm more than likely just ignorant to the subject. Just trying to enlighten myself.

 

[Scotishfury09]

11 Inchs per year ressession ?
Isn't that like 7.3X more than what it is (1.5" Per year) ?
http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/our_solar_system/the_moon/facts.html

I can't speak for busterdog himself, but he probably got his numbers confused with Jupiter's 11 hour day. I think he would agree to that number upon closer inspection.

Lewis: Some good videos on the subject. (edit: the videos are a little cheeky, but they are clear on their intent. They're kinda long so you can go here to see an article specifically about Uranus)

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I can't speak for busterdog himself, but he probably got his numbers confused with Jupiter's 11 hour day. I think he would agree to that number upon closer inspection.

Lewis: Some good videos on the subject. (edit: the videos are a little cheeky, but they are clear on their intent. They're kinda long so you can go here to see an article specifically about Uranus)

I here and see a bunch of people saying that the current theories do not cover this, but I see no reference to the theories themselves.

I can make a video or website claiming that peanutbutter and jelly sandwiches are not explainable by science, but unless I show real evidence, why should anyone believe me?

All the college level astronomy sites seem to contradict what these people are saying and show how the nebular theory does explain these things.

What reason should I trust a youtube video and a random website over the experts in the field?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

On the video, the speaker says the term evolution means that things formed without a creator.

Why it may be fun to make up definitions of words, the fact is evolution simply means change, it has no conotation about whether God did or did not have any hand in the process.

His line of thinking also implies that if something happens "naturally" then God has nothing to do with it. This idea is contradictory to Christianity and the Bible which states that God is responsible for everything, the stuff we like as well as the stuff we don't.

I do not know why the speaker would want to adopt the atheistic idea that nature excludes God even thought the Bible states otherwise.

 

[Scotishfury09]

On the video, the speaker says the term evolution means that things formed without a creator.

Why it may be fun to make up definitions of words, the fact is evolution simply means change, it has no conotation about whether God did or did not have any hand in the process.

I agree. I think he is more talking about the politicized view of evolution and the fact that it is commonly seen as being athiestic, but yes I disagree that the term 'evolution' means without a creator.

His line of thinking also implies that if something happens "naturally" then God has nothing to do with it. This idea is contradictory to Christianity and the Bible which states that God is responsible for everything, the stuff we like as well as the stuff we don't.

I do not know why the speaker would want to adopt the atheistic idea that nature excludes God even thought the Bible states otherwise.

I didn't take the same implications as you did. I saw that he was showing that there are certain anomalies that cannot be explained naturally and thus reason for a creator.

There were many things in the video that I thought didn't exactly make the point he was trying to make or wasn't enough evidence to support his argument, but I still think there are a lot of "coincidences" in our solar system that cry for a creationistic view.

I'm still banging my head against the wall as to why, if God made our Solar system with so many glaring unexplainable traits, he would chose to plant false clues and create our solar system with the intent of being unable to discover the truth.

 

[Knowledge3]

I picture looking at the surface of the moon with a powerful telescope.

 

[Scotishfury09]

What reason should I trust a youtube video and a random website over the experts in the field?

If you watched the video about Uranus you would see that he quoted the "experts in the field"

I had just found the videos on youtube to be easier to get to. Many other people have linked to youtube on the forums also. You make it sound like it was some 13 year old with nothing better to do.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I here and see a bunch of people saying that the current theories do not cover this, but I see no reference to the theories themselves.

I've done some research for you on the subject on NASA's website.

Uranus' rotation axis is nearly horizontal as though Uranus has been knocked on its side, as compared to most other planets in our solar system. This unusual orientation may be the result of a collision with a planet-sized body early in the planet's history, which apparently radically changed Uranus' rotation.

Uranus's orbital eccentricity: .047168
Mars: .0934
Jupiter: .04839
Saturn: .0541506
Neptune: .00859
Earth:

0.01671022
Venus: .0068
Mercury: 0.20563069

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Uranus&Display=Facts

Compared to the rest of the planets it doesn't seem like Uranus was hit hard enough to knock it completely sideways.

 

[Deamiter]

I've done some research for you on the subject on NASA's website.



Uranus's orbital eccentricity: .047168
Mars: .0934
Jupiter: .04839
Saturn: .0541506
Neptune: .00859
Earth:

0.01671022
Venus: .0068
Mercury: 0.20563069

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Uranus&Display=Facts

Compared to the rest of the planets it doesn't seem like Uranus was hit hard enough to knock it completely sideways.

Apples and oranges there -- orbital eccentricity is a measure of how circular an orbit is (0 being perfect), not a measure of how lined up the axis is with the rest of the solar system. The orbit and axis after a collision both depend on the relative velocity and orientation of the collision, and theoretically any combination of axes and orbits is possible.

If I recall correctly, planets are also often pulled by each others' gravitational fields to straighten out orbits, though again, such a correction is hardly necessary to conclude that Uranus must have been hit at some point in the past..

The argument you're making is a little like striking a pool ball and then recording on videotape the motion only after the collision. The rotation and velocity (no matter what the final result) is indeed very improbable when compared to all the possible rotation and velocities... but it would not be accurate to say that since any outcome is possible, the final rotation and velocity could not be due to a collision between pool balls.

Oh, one more thing -- it's actually possible for a collision to caus the 90 degree tilt in the axis and cause a planet to go from an orbit with zero eccentricity to another orbit with zero eccentricity. It just has to strike at just the right angle to knock the planet into a slightly wider and faster orbit or an orbit slower and closer to the sun. That's not what happened (Uranus does have a middling eccentricity as you've noticed) but you should just be aware that it's possible. The point is that a planet's orbit doesn't really say anything about what it's axis should be given that it's been struck significantly in the past.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I'm still banging my head against the wall as to why, if God made our Solar system with so many glaring unexplainable traits, he would chose to plant false clues and create our solar system with the intent of being unable to discover the truth.

I don't believe God made a universe that we cannot understand.

The first command given to humans in Genesis is for humans to fill the Earth and subdue it.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

How can one rule if one cannot even understand?

God may have not given us the answers, it is up to us to find them, but I do not believe that God ordered us to do something that we were not able to eventually get done.

I believe this universe runs according to God's will, and as with salvation, I have faith the God's will is not fickle or arbitrary.

God never promised understanding would be easy, but I doubt God lied when His orders to us implied that we could understand.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Deamiter - This is true. There is the slight possibility that it could have been hit at exactly the right place and kept its orbit close to those of the rest of the planets, but that doesn't account for the fact that its orbit lies closer within the elliptical plane than every planet other than Earth. The angle you suggest would have knocked it closer to Pluto's orbital plane.

Lewis - Our order was to fill the Earth and subdue it; to rule over the animals. That doesn't necessarily include our solar system. It doesn't say to rule over the stars and therefore understand them.

I can't comprehend why God would make the solar system so easily explainable by the laws of nature except for a few things we can't understand, but we're not supposed to be able to understand everything God does. We both agree that we should have faith in Him and rest assured that everything will be taken care of.