What you aren't being told about astronomy

[juvenissun]

I don't understand how you can say, Juvenissun, that biological evolution is far, far, far from being a scientific theory, when that is precisely how it is defined in the community of scientists? Do you know more about science than they do? In point of fact, you are nowhere near qualified to decide what is science and what not or dictate to scientists what they are doing or should assume they are doing. So get off your high horse. Next, I don't follow you about the rock and the zoo. Are you trying to say we can't observe a dog turning into another species? If so, I suggest you read about the fox project. Since about 1950, Russian scientists have been working to turn foxes into dogs. So far, the results are impressive, though there is still a long ways to go. So, yes, long-term laboratory studies are being done on evolution, but they are long-term. Bacteria are a different story. Bacteria can go through thousands of generations is just a few months. more than one lab study has demonstrated evolution in bacteria. In science, the laws of nature do not stop at your stove, so you can well bet if this holds for bacteria, it also holds for all other organisms.

Yes, I know as much science as "they" do.
And I do think I know much more science than you do.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

What in the world, does evolution have to do with planets?

The theory of evolution, says NOTHING about astronomy.

Seems you have a need to try and deny evolution and this is a big fail.

 

[Armoured]

I do not want to push this. But I want you to learn: If not monkey, what is it? Spell out the species name and explicitly say that it evolved into human.

Some disagreement of whether Homo neanderthalensis, or directly from Homo heidelbergensis. But either version is close enough for our purpose. Neither is remotely close to a monkey.

 

[Armoured]

Yes, I know as much science as "they" do.
And I do think I know much more science than you do.

If true, why so adamant that evolution claims monkeys evolved into human? That doesn't sound like you know science at all.

 

[durangodawood]

What in the world, does evolution have to do with planets?

The theory of evolution, says NOTHING about astronomy.

Seems you have a need to try and deny evolution and this is a big fail.

"Evolution" is a common term in astronomy:

 

[bhsmte]

"Evolution" is a common term in astronomy:

Evolution is a common term in many things.

Biological evolution is specific.

 

[durangodawood]

Evolution is a common term in many things.

Biological evolution is specific.

He didnt say "biological" evolution .

 

[bhsmte]

He didnt say "biological" evolution .

What did the OP mean by "evolutionists", in quoting him below?

"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."

 

[durangodawood]

What did the OP mean by "evolutionists", in quoting him below?

"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."

Hmmm. OK. I guess youre right.
Last time I give a creationist the benefit of doubt.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Yes, I know as much science as "they" do.
And I do think I know much more science than you do.

Sounds like you have a sampling error.

 

[Astrophile]

Nope - that's not what he said at all.

Monkeys did not evolve into humans. Humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor.

To be fair, I should cite the famous evolutionary biologist George Gaylord Simpson (1902-84) on this point. He said that we have not evolved from any living species of ape or monkey, but if we could meet our common ancestor with the other apes or with monkeys we should certainly call it an ape or a monkey.

 

[AV1611VET]

What in the world, does evolution have to do with planets?

Planetary Evolution

 

[Hoghead1]

We have not yet discovered the common ancestor, Juvinessun. However, it is a sound logical inference from what we do know.

 

[Michael]

You are quite right. I have rejected God as a possible explanation for physical phenomena, and have never regretted it; in many years of studying astronomy, I have yet to find a phenomenon that has failed to yield, at least in part, to natural explanation. In my experience, bringing in the supernatural merely leads to confusion.

How does that work? You currently need to have faith in *four* unique supernatural constructs to study what passes for "astronomy" these days.

Calling space expansion "natural", is simply a supernatural claim being passed off as "natural".

 

[juvenissun]

Some disagreement of whether Homo neanderthalensis, or directly from Homo heidelbergensis. But either version is close enough for our purpose. Neither is remotely close to a monkey.

Do you mean Adam was their ancestor?
Or, they were also evolved from something?

 

[juvenissun]

We have not yet discovered the common ancestor, Juvinessun. However, it is a sound logical inference from what we do know.

Why is it logical? I do not see any logic there.

Does it look like:
Because bacteria evolved in lab,
So human evolved from bacteria.

 

[Hoghead1]

You don't see any logic there, Juvenissun, because you are not carefully reading the literature. And no, it doesn't look like that at all. What gave you that idea?

 

[pat34lee]

Out of those, while a lot of people use the word "evolution" in this way, it's usually a colloquial shorthand for something else. For example, "organic evolution" isn't actually a thing. The proper term is "abiogenesis". Likewise, "stellar evolution" is a colloquialism often used when someone discusses Stellar Formation. Stars are individual objects - they do not evolve in a scientific Theory of Evolution sort of way. And I've never even heard of someone talking about "chemical evolution". That makes pretty much no sense to me. Chemicals and elements don't evolve, they combine or break down. And "cosmic evolution" is just Cosmology.

Which kind of just leaves the last two. Both of which are contained in the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

-J

If abiogenesis happened, it was not one step, but the end of a long series
of events. Evolution. Rocks to goo to molecules toproteins to rna to life.
The only problem is that like every evolution tale, it's impossible.

Darwinism co-opted adaptation because it looked like evolution, and it
is actually scientifically true. The problem is that it has limits.

 

[pat34lee]

OK, let's just take one of those. So-called 'chemical evolution'
I assume you mean the process where lighter elements such as hydrogen can be fused to form heavier elements? Yes?

This goes back to an argument from another thread. Gases in space
cannot be made to compress to the point of becoming stars. If the
hydrogen atoms were water molecules, you could not cause them
to become dense enough tocause rain.

 

[Hoghead1]

I disagree. I think stars evolve because they grow, live, and then die. I think the universe evolves because it is continually in state of flux. Evolution basically means a change in the "essence" of something. And that happens moment to moment throughout the universe. You cannot put your foot in the same stream twice. You cannot look out at the same universe twice. You cannot see the same species twice. With ourselves, no thinker thinks twice. Also, I view the universe as an organism, not a machine. Now an organism does evolve. in fact, the universe seems to have gone form something wholly simple to something wholly complex.