Re: Just a few small questions I hope.
- From: "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:32:23 +0100
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MaidnUnr0IHZXpLbnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<Zuca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:460f64b1$0$17049$bf4948fe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've been reading through what creationists call "the evolution cruncher"
which is found on here : http://tinyurl.com/2mnsdc
Now most things are so easily refuted that even I can do it.. But I have
a few I really dont know anything about and couldnt really find any
answer to either.. I'm going to post those here and I hope that someone
here can give me a good explenation as to why the assumptions made on
that site are false.
Thank you in advance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 - HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE-According to one theory of solar energy,
hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But
hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred
Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old
as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It
would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra
reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must
be youthful.
The simplest explanation for this is (assuming that Hoyle is not being
misrepresented) is that Hoyle was wrong. Ironically, Hoyle IIRC, argued
for a "steady state" universe, which would have been much older than Big
Bang models. Stars fuse locally available hydrogen, they don't
constantly "suck in" more hydrogen from other sources.
Interestingly, Hoyle, and I believe Lyttleton, came up with just this idea,
that stars could be far older than models of nuclear fusion implied,
because as they moved through space their gravity would "suck in"
interstellar gas. It turns out they were wrong about this, because the
density of interstellar space was lower than they believed and also because
they neglected effects such as stellar winds and radiation pressure.
However, this accretion idea turns out to be the best explanation of the
very rare (c. 1%) peculiar A stars known as Lambda Boötis stars, with
surface abundances of certain metals similar to interstellar gas rather than
to the solar composition. These stars are thought to be passing through a
dense cloud of such gas (or to have recently passed through), and these
clouds or clumps are known to be around 1% of the interstellar medium by
volume. Accretion works as an explanation of their temporary surface
abundances.
[snippage]
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
.
- References:
- Just a few small questions I hope.
- From: Zuca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Just a few small questions I hope.
- From: Dana Tweedy
- Just a few small questions I hope.
- Prev by Date: Re: In the News: Veering from Evolution: Fired teacher explains his presentation
- Next by Date: Re: What should I do?
- Previous by thread: Re: Just a few small questions I hope.
- Next by thread: Re: Just a few small questions I hope.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
