(09-02-2015, 11:04 PM)dmcowen674 Wrote: I have stayed away from these threads but looking at your timeline I see many flaws.
You can see Star creation right here, Jupiter is a failed Sun. If it ignited we would be a binary Star system.
As far as your question of why we don't see a bazillion Super Nova's is because man hardly can see beyond our nose. It wasn't very long ago when the Telescope was first made and we can tell the difference from a planet VS a Star.
Open your mind beyond our tiny little spec of the Universe and you will realize we are just an Ant.
Agreed with the bottom line, by a mile!! At least I don't have the audacity to claim the age of the entire universe, let alone Earth, when we never were able to accurately determine the distance of the most notable nearby super-giant Betelgeuse within 20-30% margin of error, for all of these decades when estimated to be 600-700 light years away (or much worse like 1000 ly) depending on the source after we had the gall to write down the age of the universe.
Regarding the explosions - "In relation to the frequency of stellar explosions that had to occur in order to satisfy the requirements of the Big Bang theory, and with 100 billion stars just in our own galaxy, at least 500,000 stars should explode yearly in our own galactic system. And this would be a low estimate."
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch02.htm
Now, we certainly have gazillions of telescopes pointing at the sky, yet we still aren't seeing any at more than 1/500,000th the rate that should be expected according to the age of the universe. Either the universe is at least trillions upon trillions of years old, or real young.
Well, both Jupiter and Saturn are already "ignited" in a way, in that they give off more heat than the heat that is received from the Sun. Yet, it's impossible for hydrogen gas clouds to just coalesce into a sphere without it already being tightly compressed in the first place in the form of a ball. Perhaps it's best for me to just quote the scientific journals (or at least the Evolutionists):
“Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.” George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.
u “Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn—the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass—and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.” Richard A. Kerr, “A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns,” Science, Vol. 298, 29 November 2002, p. 1698.
It's because the properties of gas in a vacuum just simply do NOT coalesce, unless it was already in liquid or frozen state suspended in space - which is not possible due to solar radiation and zero pressure instantly vaporizing these particles. Another huge problem is for an orbiting rocky planet even 10 times as massive as Earth to just "collect" all of that gas before it is rapidly driven out of the solar system by expansion from heating up and also be blown away by solar wind, in addition to light radiation from the sun pushing each molecule away with greater force than Sun's own gravity. It all has to happen in an instant, all at the same time... "poof"! The entire outer solar system (including the Kuiper belt and beyond) does not even have enough hydrogen to form one Juptier.
“In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, the [theorized] lifetime of the solar system. ‘Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ‘We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’ ” Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,” Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054.
And only 2 years ago, the Nature journal states:
“Planet formation is a paradox: according to standard theory, dust grains orbiting newborn stars should spiral into those stars rather than accrete to form planets.” Philip Campbell, “Trap Holds Protoplanet Dust,” Nature, Vol. 498, 13 June 2013, p. 141.
As to the dust grains, they're not even spiraling into our Sun... yet?
"Evolutionists claim that the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4,600,000,000 years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun. Colliding asteroids also would create dust particles that, over millions of years, would spiral in toward the Sun. Particles should still be falling into the Sun’s upper atmosphere, burning up, and giving off an easily measured infrared glow. Measurements taken during the solar eclipse of 11 July 1991 showed no such glow. So, the assumed “millions of years” and this explanation for the solar system’s origin are probably wrong."
See the Poynting-Robertson effect ( http://www.creationscience.com/onlineboo...#wp1260991 )
And then, NOW THIS:
Quote:What has been learned? As one astronomer wrote, these newly discovered planets “spell the end for established theories of planet formation.”8 How do these extrasolar planets contradict evolution theories? One planet has been found in a tight cluster of tens of thousands of stars that would disrupt the evolution of any planet. That cluster is also devoid of the heavy chemical elements thought necessary to evolve a planet.9 At least 30 separate planets each orbit a pair of suns whose constantly changing positions would disrupt any slow evolution of a planet.10 One planet has been repeatedly observed eclipsing each of the eccentric binary stars it orbits. The forty-nine experts who discovered this planet admit that they have no theoretical understanding for how such a planetary system could have evolved.11 One planetary system (having at least two planets) orbits a pair of suns! 12 A Jupiter-size planet has been found orbiting three suns! Its orbit is so close to one star (0.05 AU) that it would have been pulled apart and overheated before it could have evolved. Worse yet, two other stars orbit the first star at a distance of 12.3 AU. They would also prevent the planet from evolving.13 Other planets orbit binaries in other strange configurations.14From http://www.creationscience.com/onlineboo...#wp5215740 (but check out the footnotes!!!)
Some planets are so near their star that they are losing mass too rapidly to have been planets for very long.15 Besides, their rocky cores would have melted before the planet’s evolution could begin.16 Others are too far from their star and the dust near the star needed to grow a planet. Also, their slow motion at those great distances would “scoop up” little dust. One extreme example is a planet that is 650 AU from its star (650 times the Earth-Sun distance).17 That great distance may have resulted from the stretching of space during the creation week, as explained on pages 418–430.
If planets have evolved, friction from the gas and dust around a young star would have circularized each planet’s orbit. Many extrasolar planets have very elongated and/or highly inclined orbits as opposed to the orbits of the planets in our solar system. A few planets orbit their star in directions opposite to the direction the star rotates.18 Neither elongated, nor tilted, nor retrograde orbits would evolve from swirling dust clouds.
Some relatively cool, “rogue” planets (not associated with any star) are being discovered wandering alone in deep space. Experts admit that, “The formation of young, free-floating, planetary-mass objects like these is difficult to explain by our current models of how planets form.” 19
One extrasolar planetary system, called Kepler-11, consists of six planets orbiting in nearly the same plane. They are so close to their star that collisions and orbital perturbations should have quickly destroyed their compact, “flat” arrangement20—unless they are extremely young.
What is clear is that for both our solar system’s planets and for the extrasolar planets, evolutionary explanations have been shattered. Unfortunately, hundreds of millions of people have been misled by claims that planets evolved. Even the “experts” who have been telling us these stories will now admit that they were wrong.21
Mind-blowing, isn't it? Maybe Heaven is spitting out planets along with stars in perfect orbits, when we cannot see them (just like with alien UFO's being rather "elusive" to any scientific proof?)