What you aren't being told about astronomy

[Not_By_Chance]

For those who enjoyed the first two DVD's of Spike Psarris's series on astronomy, there's great news - Volume 3, "Our Created Universe" has just been released and is available online (I've just ordered my copy, but demand is likely to be very high). Here's a summary of the conclusions from Volume 1, "Our Created Solar System" concerning problems with explaining the origin of the solar system without a Creator and before anyone says anything about his use of the term "evolution" in astronomy, as Spike explains, he's just using the term in the same way that many secular media have done:-

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MERCURY
Evolution says it can’t be dense, but it is.
Evolution says it can’t have a magnetic field, but it does.
Volatile elements discredit the solar nebula model.
Magnetism and geological activity make it look young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT VENUS
It should have lots of similarities to earth, but it doesn’t.
Even evolutionists admit that its surface is young.
It’s consistent with a young solar system.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT EARTH
It shouldn’t have any water, but it has huge amounts, enough to cover the entire surface to a depth of over a mile if the earth’s surface were flat.
Its magnetic field is young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT THE MOON
Evolution can’t explain its origin.
Evolution can’t explain its geology or ghost craters.
Evolution can’t explain its recession.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MARS
Liquid water is not possible on Mars.
Global flood on Mars but none on earth?

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER
According to evolution, it can’t be made up of what it’s made up of.
No planetesimals were available to build Jupiter.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER’S MOONS
Ganymede should have a magnetic field, but it doesn’t.
Callisto shouldn’t be geologically active, but it is.
Europa disproves long-age crater counting.
IO looks young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT SATURN AND ITS MOONS
The migration problem.
Saturn’s magnetic field doesn’t match evolutionary theories.
Enceladus is young.
Titan is young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT URANUS AND ITS MOONS
Evolution says it shouldn’t be rotating sideways, but it is.
Evolution says it shouldn’t have a magnetic field, but it does.
Evolution implies it should be radiating energy, but it isn’t.
Miranda is a mystery for evolutionary models.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT NEPTUNE
It looks young – not billions of years old.
Its magnetism defies evolution.
According to evolution, it can’t be there at all!

PROBLEMS FOR THE OORT CLOUD THEORY
It’s never been seen.
Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud: its properties; its origin; its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct, observational evidence for its existence.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT COMETS AND TNO’S
TNO’s look young, not old.
Comets contradict the evolutionary model.
Short-period comets shouldn’t be here if the solar system were really billions of years old.

 

[The Cadet]

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MERCURY
Evolution

Um, hi, evolution has nothing to do with other planets, or even earth's geology. What are you even talking about? Is this one of your source's claims? If so, your source has absolutely no understanding of Evolution whatsoever, and really shouldn't be taken seriously on the subject.

 

[Goonie]

 

[florida2]

Well I be darned - a huge number of claims and not a scrap of evidence. I'm stunned.

Oh, and somehow trying to shoehorn evolution ino everything to try and discredit it is just pathetic and desperate.

 

[The Cadet]

On a more general note, I know that posting a huge number of claims and arguments with little to no backing and expecting your opponent to come up with refutations sounds like the most convincing thing in the world, but really, it comes across as desperate. It's not the 80s anymore, people know what a Gish Gallop is. Normally, I'd do what I always do with a Gish Gallop: I'll take one point, refute it, and then ask the poster to either defend the point or admit that they were wrong. But the points raised are so fundamentally unsourced and nonsensical (evolution says mercury can't be dense? Mercury is not a species of organism, it is a planet, and as a result, evolution has nothing to say about it) that even that seems like too much work.

When come back, please provide argument.

 

[SkyWriting]

Here's a summary of the conclusions from Volume 1, "Our Created Solar System" concerning problems with explaining the origin of the solar system without a Creator and before anyone says anything about his use of the term "evolution" in astronomy, as Spike explains, he's just using the term in the same way that many secular media have done:-

Hard to image anyone misuses the term as bad as you've posted.
Scientists have been very surprised by reality.
Space is much weirder than anyone suspected
and the planets are stunningly active for their age.

 

[Loudmouth]

. . . and before anyone says anything about his use of the term "evolution" in astronomy, as Spike explains, he's just using the term in the same way that many secular media have done:-

I would love to see just one example of the "secular" media misusing the term evolution as egregiously as the opening post does.

As to the rest, you can find the refutations here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

[The Cadet]

Also, this is a classic case of the most basic variant of a fallacy called "Anomaly Hunting". Here's how it works:
- Look for something which seems to not fit the established theory
- Declare that it does not fit without further thought or investigation

In real science an anomaly is only declared so after exhaustive efforts to explain it within existing theories fail. Astronomers checked and quadruple checked their calculations of Mercury’s orbit. They hypothesized that there were other bodies in the solar system exerting gravitational effects on Mercury. They did everything they could to explain Mercury’s orbit within Newtonian physics. This process didn’t really end until Einstein explained the orbit of Mercury.

What pseudoscientists do is look for “apparent” anomalies – things that cannot be immediately explained, or (even worse) are just quirky coincidences. Often they also look at the edges of detectability where data becomes fuzzy and anomalies are easier to imagine. Think of the fuzzy pictures of Bigfoot or UFOs, with believers looking at details smaller than the resolution of the images and declaring the presence of anomalies.

They imagine that if they can find (broadly defined) anomalies in that data that would point to another phenomenon at work. They then commit a pair of logical fallacies. First, the confuse unexplained with unexplainable. This leads them to prematurely declare something a true anomaly, without first exhaustively trying to explain it with conventional means. Second they use the argument from ignorance, saying that because we cannot explain an anomaly that means their specific pet theory must be true. I don’t know what that fuzzy obect in the sky is – therefore it is an alien spacecraft.

Seems to fit the mold very well. As Loudmouth pointed out, refutations to these claims are publicly available and, depending on the claim, have been for up to decades. @Not_By_Chance , did you not check your claims before posting them on a public forum? Did you not vet your source to make sure it wasn't lying to you? We've had this conversation before, IIRC, and it seems you have not learned anything.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Why do you trust sources that have no formal education and training in the subject they are attempting to write about? Do you also take your car to your dentist?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you also take your car to your dentist?

Yes.

Unless I want to walk.

And that ain't gonna happen.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Yes.

Unless I want to walk.

And that ain't gonna happen.

I should have been more specific. If your car needs fixing, do you bring it to your dentist?

 

[AV1611VET]

If your car needs fixing, do you bring it to your dentist?

Nope.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Um, hi, evolution has nothing to do with other planets, or even earth's geology. What are you even talking about? Is this one of your source's claims? If so, your source has absolutely no understanding of Evolution whatsoever, and really shouldn't be taken seriously on the subject.

You realise of course that you have just demonstrated that you have not even read the opening paragraph properly and also confirmed what I predicted. Here are the relevant words again: "and before anyone says anything about his use of the term "evolution" in astronomy, as Spike explains, he's just using the term in the same way that many secular media have done:"

 

[Not_By_Chance]

evolution has nothing to say about it

See my reply above (post #13)

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I would love to see just one example of the "secular" media misusing the term evolution as egregiously as the opening post does.

How about 8...

"The Origin and Evolution of The Solar System" by Michael M. Woolfson
"Evolution of Stars: The Photospheric Abundance Connection" by G. Michaud
"Chemical Evolution of Galaxies" by Francesca Matteucci
"Solar System Evolution - A New Perspective" by Stuart Ross Taylor
"Stellar Structure and Evolution" by Rudolf Kippenhahn
"Dynamic Evolution of Star Clusters - Confrontation of Theory and Observation" by Piet Hut and Junichiro Makino
"Formation and Evolution of Galaxy Bulges" by Martin Bureau and E. Athanassoula
"Galaxy Formation and Evolution" by Houjun Mo

 

[The Cadet]

and before anyone says anything about his use of the term "evolution" in astronomy, as Spike explains, he's just using the term in the same way that many secular media have done

He misunderstands the context, then. There is no theory of cosmic evolution. Your examples:

"The Origin and Evolution of The Solar System" by Michael M. Woolfson
"Evolution of Stars: The Photospheric Abundance Connection" by G. Michaud
"Chemical Evolution of Galaxies" by Francesca Matteucci
"Solar System Evolution - A New Perspective" by Stuart Ross Taylor
"Stellar Structure and Evolution" by Rudolf Kippenhahn
"Dynamic Evolution of Star Clusters - Confrontation of Theory and Observation" by Piet Hut and Junichiro Makino
"Formation and Evolution of Galaxy Bulges" by Martin Bureau and E. Athanassoula
"Galaxy Formation and Evolution" by Houjun Mo

Use a different definition of evolution. They aren't talking about the theory of evolution, they're talking about evolution in the colloquial sense - "the gradual development of something". The gradual development of stars. The gradual chemical development of galaxies. The gradual development of the solar system. And so on, and so forth. It has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and the way your original post phrases it makes no sense. It's just the typical creationist tactic of calling everything in science that points to an old universe "evolution".

Even being generous, the other problems still appear. Many of the claims are blatantly false (the origin of the moon has been well-understood for decades now) and you provide absolutely no backing for any of them. It's still a gish gallop, it's

Would you like to take a reasonable number of claims (maybe one to three) from the first post and go into depth on them? Providing evidence, explaining what the heck you're even talking about, etc.?

 

[juvenissun]

Um, hi, evolution has nothing to do with other planets, or even earth's geology. What are you even talking about? Is this one of your source's claims? If so, your source has absolutely no understanding of Evolution whatsoever, and really shouldn't be taken seriously on the subject.

Does evolution mean changing with time?

 

[juvenissun]

He misunderstands the context, then. There is no theory of cosmic evolution. Your examples:



Use a different definition of evolution. They aren't talking about the theory of evolution, they're talking about evolution in the colloquial sense - "the gradual development of something". The gradual development of stars. The gradual chemical development of galaxies. The gradual development of the solar system. And so on, and so forth. It has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and the way your original post phrases it makes no sense. It's just the typical creationist tactic of calling everything in science that points to an old universe "evolution".

Even being generous, the other problems still appear. Many of the claims are blatantly false (the origin of the moon has been well-understood for decades now) and you provide absolutely no backing for any of them. It's still a gish gallop, it's

Would you like to take a reasonable number of claims (maybe one to three) from the first post and go into depth on them? Providing evidence, explaining what the heck you're even talking about, etc.?

So according to you, what does the (theory of) evolution mean?

 

[DogmaHunter]

For those who enjoyed the first two DVD's of Spike Psarris's series on astronomy, there's great news - Volume 3, "Our Created Universe" has just been released and is available online (I've just ordered my copy, but demand is likely to be very high). Here's a summary of the conclusions from Volume 1, "Our Created Solar System" concerning problems with explaining the origin of the solar system without a Creator and before anyone says anything about his use of the term "evolution" in astronomy, as Spike explains, he's just using the term in the same way that many secular media have done:-

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MERCURY
Evolution says it can’t be dense, but it is.
Evolution says it can’t have a magnetic field, but it does.
Volatile elements discredit the solar nebula model.
Magnetism and geological activity make it look young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT VENUS
It should have lots of similarities to earth, but it doesn’t.
Even evolutionists admit that its surface is young.
It’s consistent with a young solar system.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT EARTH
It shouldn’t have any water, but it has huge amounts, enough to cover the entire surface to a depth of over a mile if the earth’s surface were flat.
Its magnetic field is young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT THE MOON
Evolution can’t explain its origin.
Evolution can’t explain its geology or ghost craters.
Evolution can’t explain its recession.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MARS
Liquid water is not possible on Mars.
Global flood on Mars but none on earth?

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER
According to evolution, it can’t be made up of what it’s made up of.
No planetesimals were available to build Jupiter.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER’S MOONS
Ganymede should have a magnetic field, but it doesn’t.
Callisto shouldn’t be geologically active, but it is.
Europa disproves long-age crater counting.
IO looks young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT SATURN AND ITS MOONS
The migration problem.
Saturn’s magnetic field doesn’t match evolutionary theories.
Enceladus is young.
Titan is young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT URANUS AND ITS MOONS
Evolution says it shouldn’t be rotating sideways, but it is.
Evolution says it shouldn’t have a magnetic field, but it does.
Evolution implies it should be radiating energy, but it isn’t.
Miranda is a mystery for evolutionary models.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT NEPTUNE
It looks young – not billions of years old.
Its magnetism defies evolution.
According to evolution, it can’t be there at all!

PROBLEMS FOR THE OORT CLOUD THEORY
It’s never been seen.
Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud: its properties; its origin; its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct, observational evidence for its existence.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT COMETS AND TNO’S
TNO’s look young, not old.
Comets contradict the evolutionary model.
Short-period comets shouldn’t be here if the solar system were really billions of years old.

Lots of claims. Zero evidence.

This post is a textbook example of a gish gallop.

Try again when you can actually provide some support for these wild claims. And do it point by point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So according to you, what does the (theory of) evolution mean?

The theory of evolution is restricted to the field of biology. More specifically, biological diversity and development as it applies on this planet.