What you aren't being told about astronomy

[myownmynativeland]

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.

Soooooo, you are a Young Earther, correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

No does the biblical creation support the fossil record. Not in the least.

Expecting the fossil record to support the creation week is like expecting those who died in the Civil War to support George Washington.

 

[AV1611VET]

Noah's flood doesn't belong with creationism?

Did George Washington's men die in the Civil War?

 

[RickG]

Expecting the fossil record to support the creation week is like expecting those who died in the Civil War to support George Washington.

I'm not sure you analogy relates to that but I agree the fossil record does not support creation week.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure you analogy relates to that but I agree the fossil record does not support creation week.

Why it doesn't support it is a key factor in the difference between creationism and evolution.

It doesn't support creationism because it didn't exist then.

 

[RickG]

Did George Washington's men die in the Civil War?

Hmmmm. English colonists rebelling against English rule. Sounds kind of like a civil war to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hmmmm. English colonists rebelling against English rule. Sounds kind of like a civil war to me.

Cute.

The American Revolution ≠ The Civil War

 

[juvenissun]

By what scientific evidence do you base that on, other than your opinion? Remember, you have already shared with us that you have no science background in biology.

You show me a so-called evidence, I will tell you that.

 

[RickG]

Cute.

The American Revolution ≠ The Civil War

By definition of a Civil war it most certainly was. Countryman against countryman.

 

[juvenissun]

You're in no position to say something like that.

Try me.
Can you?

 

[AV1611VET]

By definition of a Civil war it most certainly was. Countryman against countryman.

Suit yourself.

If it will keep you from understanding, I'm sure the Devil is happy.

 

[RickG]

You show me a so-called evidence, I will tell you that.

You made the claim. You show the evidence. And even if the bones were not related that does absolutely noting to discredit evolution. Nothing. Where is your scientific evidence showing the fossil record magically popping into existence along with extinctions?

 

[RickG]

Suit yourself.

If it will keep you from understanding, I'm sure the Devil is happy.

REALLY AV? Does pointing out that the American Revolution technically describes a Civil War something that makes the devil happy? Seriously? Wow! Just Wow

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Try me.
Can you?

Do you have a PhD in biology?

 

[RickG]

Try me.
Can you?

Keep in mind that I am only clarifying the argument.

Previously posted:

Larnievc said: ↑Just what are your academic qualifications in biology?

juvenissum said in response: None.

Now, you also commented about a scientific paper which compared two bones which you claimed showed no evidence of being related. I asked for the source of that paper and suggested we discuss its content and context to see if it supports your position. Waiting.

 

[juvenissun]

You made the claim. You show the evidence. And even if the bones were not related that does absolutely noting to discredit evolution. Nothing. Where is your scientific evidence showing the fossil record magically popping into existence along with extinctions?

Evolution does not work. What possibility is left?

 

[juvenissun]

Do you have a PhD in biology?

No.

 

[juvenissun]

Keep in mind that I am only clarifying the argument.

Previously posted:

Now, you also commented about a scientific paper which compared two bones which you claimed showed no evidence of being related. I asked for the source of that paper and suggested we discuss its content and context to see if it supports your position. Waiting.

Keep waiting. It won't come.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No.

Then what makes you think that you are qualified enough to say that evolution is wrong?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Keep waiting. It won't come.

Then why say it if you're not going to give the evidence then? Are you just doing it so you can get attention?