Science Fiction:
(USING WORDS "evolve" / "evolution", EVOLUTIONISTS SAY CAN ONLY BE USED WITH ALBIOGENES)
Stellar evolution is the process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime. Depending on the mass of the star, this lifetime ranges from only a few million years (for the most massive) to trillions of years (for the least massive, which is considerably more than the age of the universe).
Stellar evolution is not studied by observing the life of a single star, as most stellar changes occur too slowly to be detected, even over many centuries. Instead, astrophysicists come to understand how stars evolve by observing numerous stars at the various points in their life, and by simulating stellar structure with computer models.A stellar evolutionary model is a mathematical model that can be used to compute the evolutionary phases of a star from its formation until it becomes a remnant.
The study of galaxy formation and evolution is concerned with the processes that formed a heterogeneous universe from a homogeneous beginning, the formation of the first galaxies, the way galaxies change over time, and the processes that have generated the variety of structures observed in nearby galaxies. It is one of the most active research areas in astrophysics.
Job 9:7-8 "Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. " Space is full of mysteries. Those who think that the universe is millions or billions of years old have more mysteries to solve than Bible-believing Christians do.
One of these is the mystery of a star named Sirius B. This mystery is so great for evolutionists that it was one of the main topics of discussion at a scientific symposium at Louisiana State University in 1978.
Records of Egyptian astronomers dating back to 2,000 BC describe Sirius B as a red star. The Roman senator Cicero, writing in 50 BC, also said Sirius B was red. And Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars. And in 150 AD, Ptolemy, one of the most famous astronomers in history, listed Sirius as one of the six red stars.
There can be no question that Sirius was red. Today, Sirius B is a white dwarf star. That's a problem because according to modern evolutionary astronomy, it should take at least 100,000 years for a red giant star to collapse into a white dwarf star.
The mystery of how the red giant Sirius became a white dwarf in less than 2,000 years was, and still is, the topic of hot debate. Sirius B calls into question the most basic theories about the supposed evolution of the universe. Obviously, those evolutionary ages are not nearly so well "proven" as evolutionists would like us to believe!
Prayer:
I thank You, Lord, that even as the stars glorify You, they witness to the truth about the history of the universe as revealed in Scripture. Help me, too, to be a witness for You and Your forgiving love for humankind in Christ Jesus. Amen.
Notes:
Ackerman, Paul D. 1986. It's a Young World After All. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. p. 67.
Loading...
14:11
The Star Sirius - Secret Beginingsby OvergrowDaGovernment23,561 views
Did it occur to them that Sirius B existed before they started observing way back around 2000 BC, ie the star was around 99.998.999 years old when you started looking at it genius, as such it turned to a white dwarf sometime in our very recent past.
How can this guy seriously be this stupid, you think the star just started existing when they started observing it ?
Wow.......
TheArcaneSanctum 4 months ago
@leviMichealathan Problem might be you don't understand what was being said. I'm not sure what prophesy you are refering too. You must mean Tyrus, not Tyre. Tyrus the prince and the king talked of in Ez. The Prince I believe was the living man, the king I believe was the power behind Tyrus as in Satan. Because if you read he says he was in the garden of Eden etc, he describes satan in some detail. You have to realize what was talked about went from literal Tyrus to Satan's kingdom on earth.
MegaDude1969 6 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Ah, but I never conceded that Genesis was wrong on every account; I simply followed along with your evidence on how it was, and demonstrated that there are key foundational errors with the scientific concept you supplied to show how horrendously flawed Genesis was. It generally works best when what you supply as a counter-argument to a claim has no inherent flaws that cast doubt on its reliability because it then loses effectiveness as such.
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@Lynchpinn101 I took several key points down as I was watching his program and I could point out a few other problems with his idea, but it'd take several more comments in order to express them with any form of sensibility. I do not claim to have the same level of theoretical quantum physics knowledge he or the experts have, but it's not too hard to apply a bit of critical thinking to his ideas and see that they don't really add up as neatly as he believes.
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@Lynchpinn101 The reason it's flawed is for two main reasons. A. We live in a vast universe, how are we at all certain that those particles are coming from nowhere? He speaks about wormholes and how they could allow for time travel; couldn't those particles come from a wormhole, and make at least a bit more sense than saying, it came from nowhere? That idea breaks the law of causality. B. Those particles contain trace amounts of matter and energy, very different from the BBT singularity.
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@Lynchpinn101 I recently watched an hour long Discovery special that dealt with his newest claim that science has removed not just the need for God, but in his viewpoint even the possibility for God. His essential point is that BBT requires three things: matter, space, and time. He theoretically showed how all 3 could spontaneously exist from nothing. There were several problems with his logic though. 1. Quantum particles are sometimes seen to spontaneously appear. Now how is that flawed?
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@Lynchpinn101 I never mentioned the word hypothesis, I know they're not the same thing. A hypothesis is simply the starting point of the scientific method; it has no voice on the personal biases a scientist has, other than what they choose to express in their hypothesis. We are at a wonderful time in some senses (though we can think of many modern dilemmas as well), but we have not escaped the issue of thinking, okay science has improved vastly, therefore we've got to be right this time.
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@wearestarstuffsagan C. Sagan tied "molecular evolution" with biological evolution, so your position on the subject is not in complete agreement with his. And your definition of biological evolution is lacking: such a broad definition would include gaining/loosing weight, growing older, etc; and that is clearly not the intent of the idea of "evolution"
tzephon 6 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman "Go look up the prophesy of Tyre in Ezekiel for a failed revelation from your god if you want to see something wrong."
really??? are you saying that the phoenician mainland city was rebuilt?
leviMichealathan 6 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman I dont feel like loking up one of your bible hate sites that lie. If you have somthing bring it to the table or admit you are lying.
coolvideo28 6 months ago