GODMOS Ep#1: The Shrinking of the Sun (?)

Welcome to the first episode of "GODMOS: CReationist AstroPhysics" (Yes, I mixed two names. Sue me.. ;) where I take creationist astronomy books and analyze them - on cam, for YOU to watch and learn.

Today's episode is titled: "The Shrinking of the Sun(?)" question mark included on purpose. Is our sun shrinking? Is it possible that the process of contraction of the sun is what produces the heat we receive from the sun? What DO we know about our own star in the solar system and is what we know proven?

Learn all these and more in today's episode.

Book Discussed: "Design and Origins in Astronomy, Volume 2" by Don B. DeYoung and Emmett L. Williams.

Chapters Discussed:
Chapter 1: "Godly Astronomers" (pp. 1-4)
Chapter 2: "Is the sun an age indicator?" (pp. 5-17)

--- CREDITS (THANKYOUs) ---

= Physics Help =
Phil Plait, "The Bad Astronomer"
http://www.badastronomy.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBadAstronomer
Book: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Astronomy-Misconceptions-Revealed-Astrology/dp/0471...

= Series Intro =
invertedbeardthe2nd
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/invertedbeardthe2nd

= Beta Watching =
websnarf
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/websnarf

=================
--- RESOURCES ---
=================

** ARGUMENTS FOR SHRINKING SUN **

• http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
• http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_argum...
• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..437E
• http://www.tim-thompson.com/resp8.html
• Impact 82: The sun is shrinking: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=type&ID=2
• http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
• On the age of the sun (Lord Kelvin): http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_age_of_the_suns_heat.html

** STELLAR EVOLUTION **

• Evolution of the Sun: http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/evol_sun.htm
• Evolution of Stars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades_(star_cluster)

** NEUTRINOS **

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
• http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem
• http://neutrino.phys.washington.edu/~superk/sk_release.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
• SNO Neutrino Observatory (Canada): http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/neutrino/neutrino1.html
• Astronomy Cast, Episode #32: http://www.astronomycast.com/observatories/episode-32-the-search-for-neutrinos/

** AGE OF STARS **

• Dating Mateorites: http://www.meteoritestudies.com/protected_dating.htm
• Distance to Stars and the Speed of light: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/additional_top...
• Variable Stars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_stars
• Speed of Light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light


--- THE MAIN DIFFERENCE ---
--- BETWEEN ---
--- SCIENCE AND CREATION ---

I am a human being, and although I have made a lot of research and preparations for this video, I can - and may be - wrong or inaccurate. I am not afraid of admitting a mistake and/or correcting myself. I do request you make your case logically and rationally, and if you have anything you want me to correct either send me a message, write so in the comments, or post a response video.

I am always up for a debate, and I am open minded for other views.

The method should be science, though, so if you plan to convince me through logical fallacies and cheap low-blows or strawmen, I suggest you reconcider your participation in advance.

'till next time...

Think Rationally!

~mooeypoo

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• astronomy
• creation
• godmos
• astrophysics
• exposed
• mooeypoo
• crap
• sun
• shrinking
• fusion
• neutrinos
• design
• deyoung
• williams

[claschxtreme]

sorry for posting here but ...

That guy ikester7579 doesn't allow my comments, where i addressed the most egregious errors in his presentation.

Hey, if your watching this : why don't you allow everybody to see my comments if you "know" i'm wrong?

Wouldn't be fair to at least try to refute me, or is it that my points are valid. I can produce numbers and sources to back up my claims if you want.

[mooeypoo]

I think the reason he doesn't allow comments is pretty obvious.

Biased people rarely have the courage to deal with their opponents, specifically when he knows his science is extra flawed.

He can't refute you, claschxtreme, so he prefers to make sure people don't see that.

[ikester7579]

"I think the reason he doesn't allow comments is pretty obvious."

Sorry, I don't run a blog free for all when atheists spew such hate for any christian who happens to challenge their ideas. If you guys could debate civil and without cussing, I would not have to filter your comments. But let's be honest. You guys like to cuss at those whom you hate. So filter your comments is what I will do. Don't like it, to bad. it's an option on the blog, and I choose to use it. Complain to youtube....

[mooeypoo]

This is your problem, you consider science atheistic, but you try and use it to "prove" your belief.

Your video isn't science; the claims you make are NOT the claims scientists make (the claim for 'shrinking of the sun' is that the shrinking itself is the mechanism of energy - that was DISPROVEN).

You just don't want people to see that your claims are bull.

[ikester7579]

Maybe they will remove that filter option since it bugs you guys so much. And I will suggest a cuss word filter and maybe we can all be happy.

[mooeypoo]

My dear friend, I never cursed you in my comments (which i did try to post, not expecting an approval).

You're just afraid of other people seeing the factual data, so you filter the comments that deal with analyzing your video.

.. afraid, much?

[wannaruwae]

she's cute!

[RGMex82]

I'm an astronomer and I think your work showing that the pseudoscientist arguments of creationists are wrong is very useful. Great job!

[TheRallz]

Amongst the "we know this for sure" and "this is wrong because" and the many other comments she makes is very similar to what she says is wrong with the book, as far as the play on words go, due to she never gives any mention of such evidence to show why, in fact, she knows, what she knows, and never actually contested the book with any facts whatsoever.... waste of 30 minutes

[jqs1943]

Protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, positrons, kaons, byrons, leptons, mesons, pions, kaons, and gluons are all imaginary conceptual abstracts of the atom that are misleading. These ideas hinder our bright children in ways that if they believe these thing, as they develop their scientific knowledge, they will never be able to synthetize intrinsic lattices of matter setting the progress of science in the stone age. Atoms are simple devises of nature, just as gravity is made up of 2 subfields

[jqs1943]

The rules of nature in its evolutionary codification of matter, worlds, galaxies and all other cedlestial components is a lot simpler that the abstract presentations that are passed on to us by our predecessors. The atom is a simple object of nature that meassures 3 billionths of one inch, or 90 billionths of 1 millimeter. The sun is a planetary core that's in its developmental stage which has already began its third metamorphic face of its evolvent. It will eventually manifest itself as a world

[ccf217721]

R u a girl or boy

[RaymondCorrigan]

Another proof for fusion in the sun are the spectral lines in sunlight.

We can see the proportions of hydrogen, helium and heavier elements as you would expect from fusion.

[jhstha]

Incedible stupid !!

[TheJflow008]

@mooeypoo I may have missed something feel free to correct me but... You claim that he sees science as atheistic and i think this is a normal self serving fallacy of many atheists. I do not see where he made any claim as such. I hear this a lot and IMO scientists and science are two different things. One is fact, not a scientific fact but an unchanging truth that misinterpretations dont change, the other interprets. I love science and its also helped my faith get stronger. I like your vids tho

[TheJflow008]

I appreciate your views even though they oppose mine. If everyone agreed on everything then we would have never gotten this far. I dont have time to watch the whole vid but will eventually. I would like to make a couple comments so far though.

The reason, I think, for the chapter of scientists who do believe in creation of I.D. is due to the fact that their are many scientist that believe in them and yet main stream "science" suggests the idea that none do. out of room so thats it for now.

[stratocaster539]

Hey Moo, did you get your PHD?

[Wingers413]

um godmos?.... big fail.