2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: − + − + − +
→Young Earth Creationism View: org
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists state that the [[First law of thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and they also claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref> <ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Also, these scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] has had considerable influence on fields outside of biology and this includes the field of astronomy. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html</ref> [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists believe the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on science of astronomy and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astromical bodies are inadequate:
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists state that the [[First law of thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and they also claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref> <ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Also, these scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] has had considerable influence on fields outside of biology and this includes the field of astronomy. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html</ref> [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists believe the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on science of astronomy and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> 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 [[planet|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.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref> This quotation refers to a specific model of planet development, though: not the science of planetary development, as a whole.
:“...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|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.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref> 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. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html</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.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html</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. <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.
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.