Why evolution is impossible

[sfs]

My suggestion. Wikipedia has that information and you can find it within 30 seconds.

My suggestion: answer the question. Second suggestion: don't point to a source that doesn't have the information you claim it does. Third suggestion: you don't know the answer.

Wikipedia

Same comments. Answer the question, please.

Wikipedia, Wikipedia, Wikipedia, and other sources provide that information. If I did all you suggest my posts would be many-fold longer than they are now. I won't do that.

Of course you're not going to do that. You don't have the foggiest idea what the answers to my questions are. The thing is, you can't draw any conclusions from the "facts" you originally posted unless you do know the answers, but you go right ahead and draw them anyway.

You don't need to make your posts longer; you need to pick one point, learn something about it, and then make a real argument.

As an evolutionist you don't have any idea why there are there to begin with.

Why should I "as an evolutionist" know why some unidentified stars in a poorly defined region moving at undefined velocities are where they are?

You don't wish to deal with the facts I gave. Those facts originated in secular/evolutionary sources. So deal with them or admit you have no case for stellar evolution.

I want to deal with them. I'm inviting you to help me deal with them. In fact, I'm practically begging you to helping me deal with them. But in order to deal with them, I have to know the real facts, and you're incapable of providing them. So far, the only real fact I have is that you have pasted some words that you copied from a web site. You claim the words are based on secular sources -- how do you know that? Where are the original papers? How am I supposed to figure out what the facts mean if you can't tell me the first thing about them?

You missed the point. I think you are doing it deliberately. The time scale of modern astronomers (most of them) concerning the distance and age of the stars is in error.

Yes, I know you're claiming that. I'm asking you why this observation about the change in diameter of a single star (assuming it's not an experimental artifact) shows that the time scale of modern astronomy is wrong. Just tell me.

That's right. They don't know either. Precisely why that discovery made the news. It goes against the known laws of physics.

I'm pretty familiar with the laws of physics, and I don't recall any that would forbid spiral arms from forming in galaxies. Which laws are violated here?

See my most recent post on the topic above if you wish to see some math. Then again you may visit websites like Alton Arp, George Tift, Cocke, etc. who have discovered many of the things I have/will discuss.

No, I'm not going to look at your more recent claims. I want you to stop here and explain these. What you've posted isn't an argument, it's a bunch of random facts, lacking context and of uncertain validity. They don't show anything until you go into more depth. What's the point of posting more and more weak arguments when you can't defend the arguments you've already made?

My reply: Sheesh, that's an answer?

Yes, "You don't have a clue what you're talking about" is an answer.

 

[Mallon]

From: CE260: Retrograde planets and moons

Claim CE260:

The hypothesis that the solar system formed from the collapse of a revolving nebula is contradicted by the fact that three planets and several moons revolve backwards. Source:

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 19.
Response:

1. The "backwards" planets and moons are in no way contrary to the nebular hypothesis. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons.
   
   The only moons that orbit retrograde are small asteroid-sized distant satellites of giant planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, plus Triton (Neptune's large moon) and Charon (Pluto's satellite). The small retrograde satellites of Jupiter and Saturn were probably asteroids captured by the giant planets long after formation of the solar system. It is actually easier to be captured into a retrograde orbit. The Neptune system also contains one moon, Nereid, with a highly eccentric orbit. It appears that some sort of violent capture event may have taken place. The Pluto-Charon system is orbiting approximately "on its side," technically retrograde, with tidally locked rotation. As these are small bodies in the outer solar system, and binaries are likely to have been formed through collisions or gravitational capture, this does not violate the nebular hypothesis.
   
   Uranus is rotating more or less perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. This may be the result of an off-center collision between two protoplanets during formation. Venus is rotating retrograde but extremely slowly, with its axis almost exactly perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. The rotation of this planet may well have started out prograde, but solar and planetary tides acting on its dense atmosphere have been shown to be a likely cause of the present state of affairs. It is probably not a coincidence that at every inferior conjunction, Venus turns the same side toward Earth, as Earth is the planet that contributes most to tidal forces on Venus.
2. Orbital motions account for 99.9% of the angular momentum of the solar system. A real evidential problem would be presented if some of the planets orbited the sun in the opposite direction to others, or in very different planes. However, all the planets orbit in the same direction, confirming the nebular hypothesis, and nearly in the same plane. A further confirmation comes from the composition of the giant planets, which are similar to the sun's composition of hydrogen and helium. Giant planets could hold on to all of their light elements, but small planets like Earth and Mars could not.

 

[laconicstudent]

Is there any particular reason why you are making your own responses inside quote tags?

 

[Calypsis4]

From: CE260: Retrograde planets and moons

Claim CE260:

The hypothesis that the solar system formed from the collapse of a revolving nebula is contradicted by the fact that three planets and several moons revolve backwards. Source:

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 19.
Response:

1. The "backwards" planets and moons are in no way contrary to the nebular hypothesis. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons.

(Note to the readers: every bit of what he is saying is pure opinion and not a single fact to back it up. If what they are saying is true then we might as well through away the laws of physics).


The only moons that orbit retrograde are small asteroid-sized distant satellites of giant planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, plus Triton (Neptune's large moon) and Charon (Pluto's satellite). The small retrograde satellites of Jupiter and Saturn were probably asteroids captured by the giant planets long after formation of the solar system. It is actually easier to be captured into a retrograde orbit. The Neptune system also contains one moon, Nereid, with a highly eccentric orbit. It appears that some sort of violent capture event may have taken place. The Pluto-Charon system is orbiting approximately "on its side," technically retrograde, with tidally locked rotation. As these are small bodies in the outer solar system, and binaries are likely to have been formed through collisions or gravitational capture, this does not violate the nebular hypothesis.


Uranus is rotating more or less perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. This may be the result of an off-center collision between two protoplanets during formation. Venus is rotating retrograde but extremely slowly, with its axis almost exactly perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. The rotation of this planet may well have started out prograde, but solar and planetary tides acting on its dense atmosphere have been shown to be a likely cause of the present state of affairs. It is probably not a coincidence that at every inferior conjunction, Venus turns the same side toward Earth, as Earth is the planet that contributes most to tidal forces on Venus.

1. Orbital motions account for 99.9% of the angular momentum of the solar system. A real evidential problem would be presented if some of the planets orbited the sun in the opposite direction to others, or in very different planes. However, all the planets orbit in the same direction, confirming the nebular hypothesis, and nearly in the same plane. A further confirmation comes from the composition of the giant planets, which are similar to the sun's composition of hydrogen and helium. Giant planets could hold on to all of their light elements, but small planets like Earth and Mars could not.

There he is again, the guy who said he wasn't going to get involved in this one.

 

[Calypsis4]

Is there any particular reason why you are making your own responses inside quote tags?

Yes.

Have a nice day.

 

[laconicstudent]

Have a nice day.

Ok, fine, people would take you more seriously if you would actually be polite, and not make responding to you unnecessarily difficult.

Really, if you are just going to be deliberately annoying, your not worth the time.

 

[sfs]

Bye.

So no, you don't know the answers and can't be bothered to find out. Big surprise. Let me know if you ever decide to learn anything about science, and I'll be glad to help. Until then, we don't seem to have anything to talk about. You're going to posting other people's claims that you don't understand, and you won't defend anything you've posted.

I did like this bit, though:

Then remain ignorant on the matter. With your attitude I can't teach you a thing.

If asking you to answer questions and provide references to support your claims means you can't teach me anything, then you have some very odd ideas about teaching, especially for a retired teacher.

 

[Calypsis4]

Ok, fine, people would take you more seriously if you would actually be polite, and not make responding to you unnecessarily difficult.

Really, if you are just going to be deliberately annoying, your not worth the time.

Bye.

P.S. maybe if you dealt with the issues I posted...

 

[laconicstudent]

Bye.

P.S. maybe if you dealt with the issues I posted...

Why bother? All you've done is copy-paste from non-authoritative sources. Whenever someone makes a refutation you dismiss it as lies/dishonest, and when someone suggests to you that your sources are worthless, you ignore them.

 

[Calypsis4]

Why bother? All you've done is copy-paste from non-authoritative sources. Whenever someone makes a refutation you dismiss it as lies/dishonest, and when someone suggests to you that your sources are worthless, you ignore them.

Oh, I see. So, according to you, Science Daily and world renowned astronomer Halton Arp, (among others from secular sources) are 'non-authoritative'. What you really mean is that they discovered facts about the heavens that you don't like so you trivialize those discoveries.

Not an honest assessment.

Now, I will ask you very kindly to live up to your word and don't 'bother'.

Best wishes.

 

[laconicstudent]

Oh, I see. So, according to you, Science Daily and world renowned astronomer Halton Arp, (among others from secular sources) are 'non-authoritative'.

Um, obviously Science Daily isn't authoritative. Its a popular science website. And Halton Arp isn't authoritative until he actually verifies his words and gets them published in a peer-reviewed journal of astronomy.

What you really mean is that they discovered facts about the heavens that you don't like so you trivialize those discoveries.

Until they get published in a peer reviewed journal, they are trivial.

Not an honest assessment.

Sure it is. Basic scientific practice.

Now, I will ask you very kindly to live up to your word and don't 'bother'.

I might. I find this idea that a popular science website, and an astronomers personal unpublished opinions are somehow authoritative rather amusing.

 

[Calypsis4]

For the benefit of the readers who only read the debate:

Let me show you how very dishonest my opponents have been in this matter.

Take sfs: Quote "And this means the universe is young, why, exactly? Stars never change?"

The reference was to Betelgeuse which has degenerated in size by 15% in the last 15-18 yrs. Astronomical observations have confirmed this. AND...the fact that this degeneration is getting more so with each passing yr. BUT...at that rate (doing the math) 15% in 15 more yrs is a 30% size reduction; in 30 more yrs it will reduce by 45% since it was first discovered. Within a hundred yrs Betelguese should become a nova. Even if the rate of degeneration is reduced to 2 or 3% it won't last another ten thousand yrs.

So what does this tell us? Betelguese is NOT millions of yrs old.

But sfs trivializes the whole matter by saying, "And this means the universe is young?" Uh, along with all the other evidence I presented (like Sirius changing from a Red giant to a white dwarf in less than 2,000 yrs.) and much more I have yet to present...YES!

Then he has the audacity to say, "And stars never change?"

Friends, it is precisely the fact that Betelgeuse (e.g. Sirius,) is/are changing that is the very issue I raised!

BUT, they are not changing the way evolutionists expect them to and that is why my opponents are so upset. They have reason to be. Those who have accepted lies about our universe/world and made an emotional commitment to those lies will be very upset at reading things that reveal those untruths for what they are.

The truth is that our universe/world was created by God Almighty just the way the scriptures said He did it and both the scriptures and scientific evidence reveal that fact.

 

[laconicstudent]

I see lots of numbers and percentages, and I think you are making them up on the spot.


Citation please.

 

[Mallon]

from: CE351: Evolution of Sirius
Claim CE351:

Astronomers from 2,000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star; today it is a white dwarf star. Conventional astronomy, which states that 100,000 years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, must be wrong. Source:

Hovind, Kent, 2003. Introduction to Dr. Hovind's "Creation Seminar". http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/hovind_seminar/seminar_introduction.html
Response:

1. The ancient astronomers who described Sirius as red were looking at it when it was low on the horizon, so its reddening was due to the earth's atmosphere. The "red Sirius" refers to observations made at the heliacal risings and settings of the star in Greek and Roman society (Ceragioli 1996; Whittet 1999).
2. Not all ancient astronomers recorded that Sirius was red. Many ancient sources confirm that it was white or bluish white 2,000 years ago (van Gent 1984, 1989).
3. The bright star visible without a telescope, Sirius A, is not a white dwarf. Sirius A has a white dwarf companion star, Sirius B, which has nothing to do with what ancient astronomers saw. Hovind did not check the facts behind his claims.
4. Even if Sirius had changed color, it would not support creationism or a young earth in any way. It would simply mean that one observation was unexplained.

References:

1. Ceragioli, R. C., 1996. Solving the puzzle of "red" Sirius. Journal for the History of Astronomy 27: 93-128.
2. van Gent, R. H., 1984. Red Sirius. Nature 312: 302.
3. van Gent, R. H., 1989. The colour of Sirius. The Observatory 109: 23-24.
4. Whittet, D. C. B, 1999. A physical interpretation of the 'red Sirius' anomaly. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 310(2): 355-359.

 

[Mallon]

from: CE310: The incredible shrinking sun
Claim CE310:

The sun is shrinking at such a rate that it would disappear completely in 100,000 years. This would make it impossibly large and hot in the distant past if the sun is millions of years old. Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 169.
Response:

1. This assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless. (In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.) Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.
2. There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.

Links:

Johansson, Sverker, 1998. The solar FAQ. The Solar FAQ: Solar Neutrinos and Other Solar Oddities

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs'

Van Till, Howard J., 1986. The legend of the shrinking sun -- A case study comparing professional science and "creation science" in action. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 38(3): 164-174. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astronomy-Cosmology/PSCF9-86VanTill.html

 

[lucaspa]

Your arguments have been refuted thoroughly many times. But let's briefly go over them ... AGAIN.

a 1. Concerning cosmological evolution; the so-called 'big bang' resulting in the vast order we see in our universe/world? Since when does an explosion produce order? Someone give an example of such high levels of order (such as living organisms) being developed by accidental forces.

1. The Big Bang is like an explosion. It's an analogy. Like all analogies, it has its flaws. An explosion expands within a space. In Big Bang, it is space itself that expands. Think of a gas cylinder. All that gas in a very small space. As it expands, it's entropy increases. BUT, the escaping gas can be run thru a turbine or other device to derive order -- to decrease entropy. With all the matter/energy of the universe in an infinitessimally small space, that represents the minimal entropy possible.

2. No one is claiming that the forces are "accidental". That's a creationist misstatement. Gravity is not accidental.

2. Did natural law create itself? Did the big bang create the natural laws we know?

Perhaps. Or perhaps the laws came first and created the universe. One of the attrations of String Theory is that the laws arise from the fundamental properties of strings and 'branes.

Now, none of your "objections" have nothing to do with evolution. It's pretty plain that you view evolution as atheism and are arguing the theism vs atheism debate. What's more, you are using god-of-the-gaps theology to do so. If there is no "scientific" explanation, then it must be God: "Nature provides no explanation for the origin of natural law. Unless there is a Creator who set the balance of nature, then there is no explanation available to us."

So, let's be clear. EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM. SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM. SCIENCE IS AGNOSTIC.

What is more, the god-of-the-gaps theology you are using is terrible theology. It automatically assumes the basic statement of faith of the atheists you are fighting: that natural = without God.

3. The universe does not reveal phenomena that is consistent with the theory of evolution as far as the amount of time that has been assigned to it.

Quote: "

“This year stretched the imaginations of many astronomers and cosmologists. They have discovered amazing features at the outer reaches of the universe. And they cause headaches for those with blind faith in naturalistic origin theories—including a big bang about 14 billion years ago.

Where is the source of the quote?

Instead of the creationist site you quote, let me give you a scientific article:
Morphological Number Counts and Redshift Distributions to I<26 from the Hubbl

"We combine the photometric redshift data of Fernandez-Soto et al. with the morphological data of Odewahn et al. for all galaxies with I<26.0 detected in the Hubble Deep Field. From this combined catalog we generate the morphological galaxy number counts and corresponding redshift distributions and compare these to the predictions of high-normalization zero- and passive-evolution models. From this comparison we conclude the following:1. E/S0's are seen in numbers and over a redshift range consistent with zero-evolution or minimal passive-evolution to I=24 . Beyond this limit, fewer E/S0's are observed than predicted implying a net negative evolutionary process--luminosity dimming, disassembly or masking by dust--at I>24 . The breadth of the redshift distribution at faint magnitudes implies strong clustering or an extended epoch of formation commencing at z>3 .2. Spiral galaxies are present in numbers consistent with zero-evolution predictions to I=22 . Beyond this magnitude some net positive evolution is required. Although the number counts are consistent with the passive-evolution predictions to I=26.0 , the redshift distributions favor number and luminosity evolution, although few obvious mergers are seen (possibly classified as irregulars). We note that beyond z~2 very few ordered spirals are seen suggesting a formation epoch of spiral galaxies at z~1.5 -2.3. There is no obvious explanation for the late-type/irregular class, and this category requires further subdivision. While a small fraction of the population lies at low redshift (i.e., true irregulars), the majority lie at redshifts 1<z<3 . At z>1.5 mergers are frequent and, taken in conjunction with the absence of normal spirals at z>2 , the logical inference is that they represent the progenitors of normal spirals that form via hierarchical merging. "

Look at what I bolded. As we look further back in time, we see fewer spiral galaxies. They did take time to get their spiral shape. What's more, the number of galaxies is consistent with stellar evolution from the Big Bang.

It appears, Calypsis, that your sources are making a classic strawman argument: Big Bang cosmology says no galaxies by an arbitrary time -- time set by your source. Instead, BB doesn't say that and the presence of galaxies at high redshift are consistent with BB.

BTW, Harp's observations of supposed association of quasars with galaxies has been refuted by new observations with better telescopes. All quasars are at very high red shift and they do not look like contemporary galaxies.

 

[Calypsis4]

Um, obviously Science Daily isn't authoritative. Its a popular science website. And Halton Arp isn't authoritative until he actually verifies his words and gets them published in a peer-reviewed journal of astronomy.

YOU are the one who is not authoritative. You haven't made a point yet that is worth a plugged nickel.

Until they get published in a peer reviewed journal, they are trivial.

Really? Then handle this one.

Eric Learners work is 'peer reviewed'. Check it out for yourself.

Eric Lerner - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

In 2003 he did a documentary film that featured scientists like Halton C. Arp, Andre Koch Assis, Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge, Professor Truls Hansen, Fred Hoyle, Martin Lopez-Corredoira, Nobel Laureate Kary B. Mullis, Jayant V. Narlikar, Jean-Claude Pecker, Anthony Peratt and Kristoffer Rypdal that all supported him.


BUt I guess they wouldn't meet with your approval either, right?

Sure it is. Basic scientific practice.

I might. I find this idea that a popular science website, and an astronomers personal unpublished opinions are somehow authoritative rather amusing.

Take that from 'I might' to 'I will' because you aren't saying anything.

Bye.

 

[Calypsis4]

Your arguments have been refuted thoroughly many times. But let's briefly go over them ... AGAIN.

You aren't telling the truth. All I have gotten are opinions. No facts to disprove what I have posted.

1. The Big Bang is like an explosion. It's an analogy. Like all analogies, it has its flaws. An explosion expands within a space. In Big Bang, it is space itself that expands. Think of a gas cylinder. All that gas in a very small space. As it expands, it's entropy increases. BUT, the escaping gas can be run thru a turbine or other device to derive order -- to decrease entropy. With all the matter/energy of the universe in an infinitessimally small space, that represents the minimal entropy possible.

2. No one is claiming that the forces are "accidental". That's a creationist misstatement. Gravity is not accidental.

If your evolution theory is 'true' then gravity is accidental/incidental..whatever similar adjective one can attach to it. If it is not accidental/incidental to the universe then it was planned or developed. You can't have it both ways.



Perhaps. Or perhaps the laws came first and created the universe.

By what? By whom? Name it and document it.

One of the attrations of String Theory is that the laws arise from the fundamental properties of strings and 'branes.

Now, none of your "objections" have nothing to do with evolution.

Again, you aren't telling the truth. I am revealing the fact that 'stellar evolution' as popularzied by Carl Sagan is not only not a fact of science, it never occurred in our universe to begin with. The facts that I have presented (so far) are devastating to that theory.

It's pretty plain that you view evolution as atheism and are arguing the theism vs atheism debate. What's more, you are using god-of-the-gaps theology to do so. If there is no "scientific" explanation, then it must be God:

Oh, I get you. God didn't do it. Nature did it. Right.

"Nature provides no explanation for the origin of natural law. Unless there is a Creator who set the balance of nature, then there is no explanation available to us."

So, let's be clear. EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM. SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM. SCIENCE IS AGNOSTIC.

What is more, the god-of-the-gaps theology you are using is terrible theology. It automatically assumes the basic statement of faith of the atheists you are fighting: that natural = without God.


Where is the source of the quote?

I think from answersingenesis.


Instead of the creationist site you quote, let me give you a scientific article:
Morphological Number Counts and Redshift Distributions to I<26 from the Hubbl

"We combine the photometric redshift data of Fernandez-Soto et al. with the morphological data of Odewahn et al. for all galaxies with I<26.0 detected in the Hubble Deep Field. From this combined catalog we generate the morphological galaxy number counts and corresponding redshift distributions and compare these to the predictions of high-normalization zero- and passive-evolution models. From this comparison we conclude the following:1. E/S0's are seen in numbers and over a redshift range consistent with zero-evolution or minimal passive-evolution to I=24 . Beyond this limit, fewer E/S0's are observed than predicted implying a net negative evolutionary process--luminosity dimming, disassembly or masking by dust--at I>24 . The breadth of the redshift distribution at faint magnitudes implies strong clustering or an extended epoch of formation commencing at z>3 .2. Spiral galaxies are present in numbers consistent with zero-evolution predictions to I=22 . Beyond this magnitude some net positive evolution is required. Although the number counts are consistent with the passive-evolution predictions to I=26.0 , the redshift distributions favor number and luminosity evolution, although few obvious mergers are seen (possibly classified as irregulars). We note that beyond z~2 very few ordered spirals are seen suggesting a formation epoch of spiral galaxies at z~1.5 -2.3. There is no obvious explanation for the late-type/irregular class, and this category requires further subdivision. While a small fraction of the population lies at low redshift (i.e., true irregulars), the majority lie at redshifts 1<z<3 . At z>1.5 mergers are frequent and, taken in conjunction with the absence of normal spirals at z>2 , the logical inference is that they represent the progenitors of normal spirals that form via hierarchical merging. "

Then someone is lying to us. It is either evolutionists 'A' or evolutionists 'B'. Which evolutionists should us poor, dumb, creationists believe, professor? Should we believe your scholars or should we believe Arp, Tift, Cocke, the Burbidges, Fred Hoyle, etc. etc.?

Look at what I bolded. As we look further back in time, we see fewer spiral galaxies.

That isn't true. I can refute that easily and will do so in a coming post if necessary. At the rate that galaxies are spinning in the universe most of them should have 'spun out' and dissipated long, long ago. The more time you add to the equation the worse it gets for evolution. That is the whole point of what I made about Betelgeuse and Sirius...to name a few.

They did take time to get their spiral shape.

Go try it with gases. Choose any gas and any kind of controlled experiment and reproduce such an effect. Try it some time. What a foolish notion. I call your 'science' magic. You are the true 'magicians', not creationists.

What's more, the number of galaxies is consistent with stellar evolution from the Big Bang.

Nope. More on this later.

It appears, Calypsis, that your sources are making a classic strawman argument: Big Bang cosmology says no galaxies by an arbitrary time -- time set by your source. Instead, BB doesn't say that and the presence of galaxies at high redshift are consistent with BB.

Pure baloney. BB did not happen. Stellar evolution does not exist and never did.

BTW, Harp's observations of supposed association of quasars with galaxies has been refuted by new observations with better telescopes. All quasars are at very high red shift and they do not look like contemporary galaxies.

Once again you aren't telling the truth. Not only has Arp's work made a huge impression on many in the scientific community but his support grows with each passing year. But if I listed all the notables who accept his conclusions would it make any difference to a hard core member of the party line? Of course not.

Best wishes.

 

[Calypsis4]

I see lots of numbers and percentages, and I think you are making them up on the spot.

I think you just lied.

Citation please.

I gave the citations and the publications in my topic posts above. You deliberately ignored them.

I think it's time for you to bow out.

 

[Calypsis4]

from: CE351: Evolution of Sirius
Claim CE351:

Astronomers from 2,000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star; today it is a white dwarf star. Conventional astronomy, which states that 100,000 years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, must be wrong. Source:

Hovind, Kent, 2003. Introduction to Dr. Hovind's "Creation Seminar". http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/hovind_seminar/seminar_introduction.html
Response:

I am not Kent Hovind. I did not get my source from Kent Hovind. He has nothing to do with this argument.

1. The ancient astronomers who described Sirius as red were looking at it when it was low on the horizon, so its reddening was due to the earth's atmosphere.

That isn't true. I cited five different ancient sources. Don't try and feed us this baloney that they all viewed it on the horizon near sundown. That doesn't fly. Those people were not stupid. They wouldn't report such a thing as unusual any more than reporting a red/orange moon on the horizon, a common enough matter that is seen often to this day.

1. The "red Sirius" refers to observations made at the heliacal risings and settings of the star in Greek and Roman society (Ceragioli 1996; Whittet 1999).
2. Not all ancient astronomers recorded that Sirius was red. Many ancient sources confirm that it was white or bluish white 2,000 years ago (van Gent 1984, 1989).

Those 'sources' were mostly poets and layman of various kinds. But Ptolemy was an astronomer. Seneca was a teacher/philosopher. They reported Sirius as red.

1. The bright star visible without a telescope, Sirius A, is not a white dwarf. Sirius A has a white dwarf companion star, Sirius B, which has nothing to do with what ancient astronomers saw. Hovind did not check the facts behind his claims.

You didn't check your 'facts' until I raised the issue. You made it clear that you wanted your comrades to take on this debate because you felt unqualified.

1. Even if Sirius had changed color, it would not support creationism or a young earth in any way. It would simply mean that one observation was unexplained.

References:

1. Ceragioli, R. C., 1996. Solving the puzzle of "red" Sirius. Journal for the History of Astronomy 27: 93-128.
2. van Gent, R. H., 1984. Red Sirius. Nature 312: 302.
3. van Gent, R. H., 1989. The colour of Sirius. The Observatory 109: 23-24.
4. Whittet, D. C. B, 1999. A physical interpretation of the 'red Sirius' anomaly. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 310(2): 355-359.

You said that you were going to let your comrades deal with the details. You are not a truthful person.