Difference between revisions of "Astronomy"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Wrong spot for full text, adding link for second article to actual source)
(Removing refrence that does not go to actual article refrenced.)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
:“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5665/1750</ref>  This, too, refers only to an innovative and groundbreaking new model of galactic formation, and not to some scientific shortcoming as a whole.
 
:“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5665/1750</ref>  This, too, refers only to an innovative and groundbreaking new model of galactic formation, and not to some scientific shortcoming as a whole.
  
−
:“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html</ref> This statement, made in 1983, describes astronomy before the efforts of the [[Hubble]] space telescope scientists caused many of the requested answers to be within reach.
+
:“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.  This statement, made in 1983, describes astronomy before the efforts of the [[Hubble]] space telescope scientists caused many of the requested answers to be within reach.
  
 
Also, these scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref> <ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref> <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref> <ref name="AiG Astr QA" /> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref>  Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang Theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.  
 
Also, these scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref> <ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref> <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref> <ref name="AiG Astr QA" /> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref>  Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang Theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.  

Revision as of 17:28, May 7, 2007

Definition

According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary astronomy is "the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties." [1] It has been studied since ancient times, forming a major part of the religions of many early civilizations such as the Egyptians and the Aztecs. The great stone henge at Stonehenge in England is also thought to be an astronomical observatory. The handing down of complex astronomical teachings shows these early civilizations must have had formalized systems of education.

Astronomy was crucial to the development of safe and accurate navigation for ships, and observations of the movement of heavenly bodies helped lead to the theories we now call physics. In fact, much of astronomy today relies physics, thus many astronomers are considered astrophysicists.

Young Earth Creationism View

Young earth creationist scientists state that the first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe and they also claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. [2] [3] [4] Also, these scientists assert the theory of evolution has had considerable influence on fields outside of biology and this includes the field of astronomy. [5] For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".[6] Young earth creationist scientists believe the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on science of astronomy and that materialistic explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.[7] [8] In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astromical bodies are inadequate:

“...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.[9] This quotation refers to a specific model of planet development, though: not the science of planetary development, as a whole.
“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. [10] This, too, refers only to an innovative and groundbreaking new model of galactic formation, and not to some scientific shortcoming as a whole.
“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. This statement, made in 1983, describes astronomy before the efforts of the Hubble space telescope scientists caused many of the requested answers to be within reach.

Also, these scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old,[11] [12] [13] and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.[14] [12] [15] Young earth creationist scientists also contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Problems for Young Earth Creationism

Because velocity = distance/time, a YEC wishing to postulate a universe of approximately 6000 years old faces a number of problems:

1. If they accept that the speed of light is indeed a constant 186,000 miles per second, then they must argue for massive and systemic error in the measurement of distance between Earth and the vast majority of the observable universe.

2. If they accept that the measured distances are correct, then they must argue for a catastrophic miscalculation of the speed of light.

References

  1. ↑ http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=astronomy
  2. ↑ Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science
  3. ↑ Thompson, Bert, So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!, 2001 (Apologetics Press)
  4. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html
  5. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836
  6. ↑ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html
  7. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html
  8. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836
  9. ↑ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605

    Full text of passage: Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries. As some monitoring records approach the requisite 12 years, Doppler detection of extrasolar Jupiters may not be far off. And searches are in the works for terrestrial-sized planets by looking for planets passing in front of their stars. But Tremaine remains cautious about what these searches will turn up. Speaking as a theorist, he notes that "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong."
  10. ↑ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5665/1750
  11. ↑ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A (Answers in Genesis).
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers (Answers in Genesis).
  13. ↑ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A (Creation Ministries International).
  14. ↑ Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers (Answers in Genesis)
  15. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
  16. ↑ Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique Apologetics Press, May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.
  17. ↑ Brown, Walt, 2001, Big Bang?
  18. ↑ http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309
  19. ↑ http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047
  20. ↑ http://www.icr.org/article/343/


External Links

The NASA Homepage
The NASA Planetary Photojournal
American Astronomical Society
British Astronomical Association
A guide on how to start

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Astronomy&oldid=147439"