Controversy over Creation Astronomy
As creationists have revealed the bankruptcy of the secular origin models, a growing number of atheists are trying to fight back.
Some are attacking me specifically, especially for applying the word “evolution” to astronomy. I frequently get messages like this one (actual quote):
“Umm, dude… EVOLUTION has NOTHING to do with COSMOLOGY! Quit lying for Jeebus!”
For obvious reasons, I don't bother replying to people like that.
But I did reply when a prominent astronomer said basically the same thing.
See for yourself if somebody is lying -- and if so, who it is.
Other critics accuse me of distorting the truth about astronomy. As time permits, I'll be adding articles to this site to refute them.
Meanwhile, if you come across any of their accusations, look at it with a discerning eye.
Notice how much of it is merely name-calling. This is a tactic that goes back to the ancient Greeks. When you've lost an argument, you try to discredit your opponent by attacking him personally.
Also notice that some of the critics (the honest ones, anyway) will admit that their models have serious problems. But then they'll appeal to future discoveries -- they believe that the problems will be solved in the future.
Of course, appealing to something that hasn't happened is not a scientific statement. It's a statement of faith.
A few of the lesser-informed critics say that I'm wrong, because the secular models work just fine, thank you very much. But they shouldn't be criticizing me -- they should attack all the secular scientists who work on the models. Those are the people I'm quoting to show that the models don't work.
Next, some of the critics claim I'm wrong, because I talk about some problem that the secular model has now solved.
Actually, I'm not surprised that one or two problems have (supposedly) been solved recently. (As I write this, it's possible that the core-accretion model for Jupiter might be modified to accomodate its apparent lack of a core. I spent about 30 seconds or so on this issue in the video.)
After all, the secular model is a lot of story-telling with only a little science mixed in. And stories can be changed on a whim.
So if my DVD discussed a problem that has been 'solved' since the DVD came out, does that mean I'm a liar? No. It just means the secular model changed... again.
(It's not my fault if the evolutionists keep changing their minds about their "truth".)
Also, if I list dozens of fatal problems with the secular model, and they solve one or two, does that mean the secular model is viable now?
Lastly, what the atheists aren't telling you is that some of the so-called 'solutions' are worse than the original problems.
For example, some student in the UK made a video that claimed I'm wrong about Mercury causing problems for the secular model. He appealed to a new model that showed how Mercury formed from primordial planetesimals (asteroids) and then something else happened, blah blah blah.
What he did not mention is that the secular model says that planetesimals couldn't form into planets… including Mercury. So Mercury shouldn't exist.
Hmm. Why do you suppose he left that part out?
As another example, in my DVD I show how the secular model predicts that Uranus and Neptune can't exist. Obviously, they do.
Well, a recent 'solution' to this problem was announced in New Scientist. Supposedly, all the giant planets originally formed elsewhere -- not where they are today.
Then after about 700 million years of stability, Jupiter and Saturn suddenly started "playing pinball with Uranus", batting it back and forth several times before throwing it out to its current orbit. Then Jupiter and Saturn moved too.
In other words, the Solar System as we see it today contradicts the secular model.
To rescue the model, scientists are making up stories about how things used to be different, and then planets started playing pinball with each other.
Is this science? No, it's storytelling. Not even good storytelling, at that.
Sadly, this is what is being taught as 'truth' today.