And that's still unfair, since we're talking about events that take billions of years to take place, some millions of times longer than human civilization has lasted.

That was the point of the comparison to redwood trees: no one -- and, in fact, no human civilization -- has seen a seedling grow to full maturity.

The path of stellar evolution has been deduced indirectly. It has to be. Direct observation is not possible.

Indirect deduction gives us the molten core of the earth, the temperature of the sun's surface, the temperature of the center of the sun, the mineral composition of distant stars, etc. etc. None of us has ever seen the formation of metamorphic rocks; do you seriously doubt that they exist?

To be fair, you didn't base any concrete claim on the fact that stellar evolution is not observable. You did crow over it, and that rankled.

Silas

Hi Curt:
There were some things in your post I didn't get, so I address them below:

Curt:
...I will now go on to address a few specific points in the various "rebuttals". If I seem to ignore any of your favourite points, it's not because I cannot answer them so much as it is that I believe all that can be said has been said--my position is clear to you, your position is clear to me, and we all know we're not changing each other's minds.

Chip:
A bit off topic of me to start -- But actually, I don’t understand what you’re really driving at. Your argument with Mr. Thompson's point seems stuck within the quest for an ultimate authorization of it, and based on everything stemming from that ultimate autority. I can appreciate some "authority" in life, but I have no approach based on a specific central authority above all others. (Which gives you an inkling of what communication with an alien (to you) intelligence (me) might be like.) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

I said that stars do not change form totally according to stellar evolution's theory of a main sequence uniting all different 'stages of a star's life' into a single continuity.

To me, this does not support nor relate to the literal view of the “Bible” which I think you support.

Tim mentioned that fusion in stars burns fuel, and that stars must run out of fuel over time. Okay, I can even grant that--but Tim, they haven't used nearly as much fuel in the few thousand years that they've existed as your multi-billion-year theory requires. Running out of fuel isn't nearly the problem you make it out to be.

Tim can respond to that better than me, but I do have a question: We observe the same stars that we know were observed differently in the past. How do you account for the Crab Nebula, whose central star was observed as a Nova by the Chinese?

In other words, if the universe was truly billions of years old, then your point about stars running out of fuel is valid. But you cannot use the idea "stars run out of fuel" as proof that the universe is billions of years old or that stars must evolve over billions of years. The age of the universe is an assumptionin the argument, not a consequent.

Is that because the Bible doesn’t recognize the speed of light? If God is going to start the Universe according to certain principles, than by the short history of our scientific observations, She seems to be allowing those principles to hold true.

To put it another way, would you (that's a group 'you', not necessarily Tim or any specific poster) agree with me, based on your acceptance of stellar evolution as the most plausible explanation of stellar development, that any given star is unlikely to burn through its total fuel supply in 7000 years?

Sure. Except for stars we see today that are greater than the distance of 7000 light years from us. For example, stars 1 billion light years away.

“…but the time scale (based on the Bible) is such that it doesn't matter. It's not a problem unless stellar evolution is correct, so you can't raise it as an objection to Biblical literalism.”

I think the problem here is your confusion of religious faith based “certainty” with the speculative (and encouraged) “uncertainty” of science. You seem to be saying: (Hypothetically) ‘You can’t prove that the theory of stellar evolution follows the main sequence so you cannot negate my Biblically literal interpretation which to me is the one and only word of God.’ Could you apply the same reasoning to the Buddist, Shinto, or Islamic view of the cosmos?

Take individual stars, and collate all the observations of each one from every available source. We still don't have a single instance of a star which is observed to be different today from when the first written observation comes down to us.

This is completely wrong. Again the Crab Nebula, seen to be a star, then a later a nebula, and today a much bigger nebula than a mere 80 years ago. Changes are observed within Eta Carinae. Changes are observed within variable stars. Super Novas are observed within galaxies.

But the Bible clearly says that the latter days will be marked by a complete falling away from God, even within the Church itself, so the fact--and I agree that it's a fact--that literal Bible-based Christianity is on the wane actually supports my literal Bible-based Christian beliefs. So there.

Perhaps this is the real motivation for responding to Tim Thompson’s original post. Again there seems to be a blurring of scientific and religious motivation on your part. It appears that Mr. Thompson is stating why he thinks the “young universe” belief is not supported in reality. (And fundamentalists grasp at straws trying to support their belief with mock scientific observations, which they can only interpret as a similar emotional authority to their Bible.) You seem to be countering not within the same playing field (of science) but rather by contrasting the open minded scientific approach based on observation and theory, with the iron clad religious quest for authorization (in the Bible). Science is by no means perfect and precedes by trail and error whereas (certain aspects of) religion must be perfect within the need for certainty. (Which can be monstrous if distorted.) I’m not criticizing “faith” which unlike "dogma", can be quite different and beneficial.

I delight in confusing anti-Biblicists by explaining that the Bible does support plate tectonics, although because physical geology isn't the point of the Bible it doesn't spell out tectonics as specifically as some would like (as I put it, the Bible supports plate tectonics without teaching plate tectonics).

Its an important book of fact, fiction, and folklore. It shows how people thought and lived, and how we can relate to some of it today. Why settle on just the Bible to make your point? There are other ancient books that refer to creation and the stars. Are they not equally valid? Unless the confusion of dogma with scientific theory again leads to unequal comparisons. The Bible isn't about stellar evolution.

Also (still on Traztx's post), "I don't see how such a story would in itself be a denial of a divine creator"--it isn't, as long as all you're concerned with is any divine creator. But the Bible doesn't just say "God created the universe" and leave it at that. It also tells us something of how He did it, and it's the details that are in opposition to a theistic-evolutionary theory. You can believe evolution and a divine creator simultaneously; you just can't believe evolution and the Biblical description of God's creation simultaneously.

And so did you chose one over the other and attack the data of one with the dogma of the other?

But like many, you confuse the issue of what exactly constitutes "the Universe," and what is merely man's interpretation of what he sees in the Universe. Stars are "universal" facts; stellar evolution is an interpretation.

But what’s the point? What’s wrong with an interpretation that supports reality? One could rewrite your statement as follows: But like many, you confuse the issue of what exactly constitutes "the Bible," and what is merely man's interpretation of what he sees in the Bible. Those who never question the Bible or anything they see in nature see stars as "Biblical" facts. Scientists see stellar evolution is an interpretation, and that is considered somehow wrong to the dogmatists.

The (Disturbingly Realist - to some, and if you noticed, Religious, in a way not outlined here, yet happy-go-lucky,) Chip

I don't have time to be quite so verbose on this occasion, and I won't be around over the weekend. So let me just hit the "high points" if I may.

Jim: Is my learning wrong, my memory failing faster than I thought or are we talking two different things?

I think it's that we are talking about two different things. What I meant was that you can't look at one helium atom, and tell if it was cooked in a star from hydorgen, or created initially in the big bang. So if you look at the stuff the sun is made of, you know that everything heavier than helium must have come from a previous generation of stars (except for the small amounts generated in the sun by the CNO cycle).

As for what fraction of the sun's mass is primordial, I don't know.

Curtmudgeon The age of the universe is an assumption in the argument, not a consequent.

False. The age of the universe is in fact a consequent of the argument, and is in no way an input assumption. To derive an age for a globular cluster, you start with a population of main sequence stars ranging from low to high mass. Then you turn on the aging process, using up fuel at rates determined by the star's mass & core temperature (which are not free parameters, but are determined by mass & composition, which are also not free parameters). As the stars age, they change within a population as they use fuel ("microevolution"), until they run out. Then physics imposes radical & rapid changes in the star's structure & appearance. Eventually the CMD of the model cluster looks like the CMD of a real cluster. At that point you read out the time from the computer, and that's the age of the cluster. Since the universe can't be younger than the cluster, we know that the age of the universe must be at least that of the cluster.

In this process that age is most definitely a consequent, and not an assumption. It is all a consequence of physics at work in the stellar interiors. There is no good way to tell, a-priori, what the computed age will be. It could be anything. But whatever it could be, what it actually is is billions of years. That billions of years is a direct consequent of the operation of physics in the stars.

Curtmudgeon: We still don't have a single instance of a star which is observed to be different today from when the first written observation comes down to us.

Actually, we do have a single instance, the only one I know of. Many ancient documents refer to Sirius, now a bright blue-white star, as a red star. It remains quite a controversy over how a star might "quickly" change from red to blue, as there seems to be no internal mechanism that would allow it. However, an intervening dust cloud could do that and may be the likely culprit.

Still, it's no surprise, and quite a meaningless observation, that we have seen no star move through some evolutionary process in our own historical record. The theory implies that such activity takes a much longer time, and as you point out, that prediction is verified by observation, thus strengthening the theory.

General comments

Now just a general comment about what scientists do. As I see it, having been a "scientist" for many years now, science is all about inferring what you don't (or can't) see from what you do see. So, we see the HRD, a highly non-random distribution of star color & brightness, and wonder how it might come to be.

It was eventually guessed that what we were seeing was in reality stars at different stages of a star's life. But the timescale was unknown, even in Chandrasekhar's time. The timescale was not really pinned down until the nuclear physics was worked out in the 1950's.

The assumption is not an age for the universe, but only that some unknown amount of time must pass. It could have been thousands of years, and fiddling with some of the reaction rates could easily make it thousands of years. But the real rection rates don't allow that, and so the consequent of the theory is that the things we see have all the appearance of "old" age.

The only way around that it to argue that the universe is created with the "appearance of age", for whatever reason.

OK, Curtmudgeon, (responding now to your more serioius post), I really appreciate how you think and feel. I'd rather rely on the Bible before I rely on any other source, too. However, I came to realize that the account in Genesis was not meant to give a scientific explanation for how the universe and world were created. God's agenda is greater than that, and besides: "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings," Prov 25:2. If he created us to be thinkers and searchers, why would He provide easy answers? Besides, in the culture ond context of when the text was written, an account like that made a lot more sense than it does to us now. (Can you imagine the original text stating, "In the beginning, there was a singularity....") What could the people back then know about galaxies or creatures of the fossil record or other such stuff? Also, looking at Gen.1 as a poetic or allegorical account is not denying the literacy of the Bible. (Please don't take me for one of those people.) Allegory was the more preferred method of use to explain things back then. All you have to do is read stories and accounts of events that other ancient cultures have recorded, and you will see a striking similarity in style and presentation to what is written in the Bible. (None of them are very scientific either - you have to wait until the Greek Empire was in full bloom before anything near our concept of scientific thinking began to surface.)

But, going back to the Biblical account, did you ever wonder how vs. 2 could mention the Earth and the existance of waters before the first recorded "day" of creation (vs. 3-5)? ("Now the Earth was formless and void...the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light....'") What exactly was the light that was created on the first day when the sun was not made until the fourth day (vs. 14-19)? If our 24-hr. days are marked by the sun, and the sun was not made until the fourth day, what marked off the time for a "day" for the first three days? Scientificly thinking, this makes no sense.

Can you at least see the possibilities here?

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

This article from Scientific American is about creationism vs. evolution, however, if you jump to the 7th page, there is a nice summation that pertains to astronomy and this thread topic.

(Page 7, bold type half way down the page.)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...88EEDF&catID=2

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-06-29 15:48 ]</font>

Curt & N. Rain,

Let me add a little more evidence in favor the dual creation theory. Most scholars believe that the Pentateuch was written by a least four authors (and a redactor). P wrote the first story (Gen 1:1-2:3) and J wrote the second story (Gen 2:5). Seeing as how several sites have the entire Bible online (some sites with multiple versions, KJV, NIV, etc.), I did a search to see if I could find one that explicitly listed the authorship. This site gives the authorship of the first ten chapters of Genesis. (The rest of site seems interesting. A good find, I think.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2002-06-29 21:02 ]</font>

I once heard that Adam's birthday was supposed to be Oct 23 4004 BC at somewhere around 4:00 AM.

__________________
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/GM/GS/MU d- s+:+ a--- C++ U--->+++ P--->+++++ L+>+++++ E? W++ N? o? K? w+>--- O? !M V? PS !PE Y+ PGP t+(t++)>+++ 5 X+>++++ R tv+ b+>++ DI++ D+ G++>++++ e>+++ h! !r y?
------END GEEK CODE------

Is that 4:00AM Eden time, or GMT? Daylight Savings or Standard?

That's putting your hands over your ears and saying, "I can't hear you". There are obviously pro and con believers on this board or we wouldn't be getting 10 page threads on the subject.

You did ignore my question:

"So are saying you choose to ignore the preponderance of scientific evidence that does not agree with the literal translation of the Bible in favor of the literal translation that is supported by no* scientific evidence?

*No is my word choice, but substituting 'very little' or 'some' would not change the meaning of my question."

Speak for yourself. I think it is very important to 'change my mind' if there is convincing evidence to do so.

There is no evidence the Bible was any more influenced by 'god' than the Quran, the teachings of Buddah, Hindu writings, Native American stories, or any other religious explanation of the beginning (or ongoing evolution) of the Universe. You and many others have merely decided which 'creation story' to believe, with the majority following whichever religion has had the most prominence in their life.

There is not convincing evidence that indicates one 'creation story' is more likely accurate than another. (To make Neb. happy I shall qualify that to be referring to literal translations.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-06-30 18:15 ]</font>

Now wouldn't that make for an interesting debate! Get a bunch of religious scholars of various sorts together and have them debate the accuracies of the different versions, the possibiity of a common origin, applications towards the scientific account, ....

But, of course, that would be completly off-topic from this board, now wouldn't it? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Judging by some of the recent threads, I'm guessing the answer is "apparently not". [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

That would be from a derivative of the Ussher chronology (the one that establishes 4004 BC to be creation date, and was published in the KJV). Even young earth creationists are looking at different interpretations these days, but they hardly ever go past a 50,000 year old humanity.

These are the main problems I find with the entirety of Bishop Ussher's timeline: Does not take into account the gaps in Biblical genealogies, and it does not consider the precision of the stated ages.

Tim mentioned that fusion in stars burns fuel, and that stars must run out of fuel over time. Okay, I can even grant that--but Tim, they haven't used nearly as much fuel in the few thousand years that they've existed as your multi-billion-year theory requires. Running out of fuel isn't nearly the problem you make it out to be.
That only makes sense if "all of time" (my phrase) is the same thing as "all time as reckoned by a literal seven days of Creation from Genesis, and totting up the generations from the Bible". But this is contrary to what observation tells us, which is that the Universe is much older.

The age of the universe is an assumption in the argument, not a consequent.
False, for reasons Tim has already outlined.

...we agree that the process of fusion is using up a finite resource, but the time scale (based on the Bible) is such that it doesn't matter. It's not a problem unless stellar evolution is correct, so you can't raise it as an objection to Biblical literalism.
So, Biblical literalism is a valid objection to stellar theory, but observation and stellar theory is not a valid objection to Biblical literalism.

Sorry, it's not a one-way street.

But the Bible clearly says that the latter days will be marked by a complete falling away from God, even within the Church itself, so the fact--and I agree that it's a fact--that literal Bible-based Christianity is on the wane actually supports my literal Bible-based Christian beliefs. So there.
It's compatible with your interpretation. There are other interpretations which are supported by this datum.

I delight in confusing anti-Biblicists by explaining that the Bible does support plate tectonics, although because physical geology isn't the point of the Bible it doesn't spell out tectonics as specifically as some would like (as I put it, the Bible supports plate tectonics without teaching plate tectonics)... (and more comments about not being compatible with "secular interpretation" of tectonics)
So it's compatible with tectonics, but it's not really compatible with tectonics... Curt, what difference does it make? You insist that everything that doesn't fit your brand of Biblical literalism is wrong. So why bother saying the Bible supports, or doesn't support, or halfway supports, any particular branch of science?

You can believe evolution and a divine creator simultaneously; you just can't believe evolution and the Biblical description of God's creation simultaneously.
You can't belive a literal interpretation of Genesis and accept evolutionary theory at the same time, no. But for me, and many others, the richness and beauty of Genesis is not rooted in a literal reading.

Sts60, "The various versions of the Good Book came to us through the hands of men, but the Universe is, how should we say, Factory-Direct" is an almost good point.
Gee, I'm... whelmed.

On the rest of that paragraph: I wasn't really thinking about internal inconsistancies or differences among various versions. Just conflicts between certain literal readings and empirical observation and theory.

But other than that, I can readily agree with you. As my pastor was fond of putting it, "God is the Author of two books. One is the Book of His Word, which we call The Bible, and the other is the Book of His Deeds, which we call The Universe. When we properly understand both, we see that there is no discrepancy between them." But like many, you confuse the issue of what exactly constitutes "the Universe," and what is merely man's interpretation of what he sees in the Universe. Stars are "universal" facts; stellar evolution is an interpretation.
Curt, I believe you are the one who is confused. Stellar theory is an interpretation which fits the facts. That's the only reason I'm interested in it. I would agree that there is no conflict between the two Books mentioned in your quote, but your idea of the proper understanding of both is pretty far from my idea.

"Stellar evolution takes a very long time, according to the theory. You cannot legitimately claim the theory is flawed because it doesn't produce transitions observable in a short time." Yep, what my good friend Steve (not himself a Biblical literalist, I should fairly point out) calls "a perfect theory"--there's no way to prove it either true or false.
Wrong. There are many ways to disprove stellar theory, if it is wrong. It has been refined to the point it is now because various parts of it have been disproven over the years, and better ones have come along. That's the way science works.

I say it doesn't happen; you say we just haven't been around long enough to see it happen. There's absolutely no way to evidentially distinguish the two sides.

Equivalence is a frequent claim of certain types of creationists, and it is pure smokescreen. Stellar theory, like any other branch of science, fits the observed facts and uses falsifiable theories to predict certain consequences of these facts. A young-universe interpretation fits some facts, disregards others, and by its very premise will not admit any contradiction.

That may be fine for you, Curt, and I defend your right to believe it. But I find my appreciation for His handiwork enhanced by scientific inquiry, not diminished by it.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-07-01 09:12 ]</font>

I don't adopt a theistic evolutionary (biological) view, but bear with me for a moment. When the Bible says that God created something, does it necessarily mean that the matter popped into existence, rather than forming through a natural process? I think that the laws of physics are creations, tools for God to accomplish some goal. What do you say more often: Your hand opened a door, or You opened a door? Does a gun shoot somebody, or Does the criminal shoot somebody?

I recall Hugh Ross of RTB (http://www.reasons.org) saying that there are two verbs in Genesis 1 that designate creation. Are they the difference between natural and direct creation?

Good thing this discussion hasn't got to the point where we're condemning other Christians for minor beliefs. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I hope I don't give the impression that I'm condemning Curtmudgeon or anyone else. I think he's wrong on his arguments. I defend his fundamental right to believe and proclaim them.

Consider living in a place where you believe the official religion or else. Ugh. What good is believing a particular way, or believing at all, if you have to believe?

Speaking of which, I believe I'm about through on this thread - unless I have something astronomical to say.

Biblical Chronology

Bishop Ussher figured the date of creation by establishing as an arbitrary zero point, the beginning of Julian cycle of 7980 years (4714 BC). He then counted forward using the Biblical accounts, and decided that the end of the great Nebuchadnezars came in the 3442nd year since creation. That year, he figure from historical reasoning, must have been 562 BC. So 3442 + 562 = 4004, hence the creation occurs in 4004 BC. The date of October 23 was selected as the Sunday closest to the autumnal equinox. The time of 9AM was not Usshers, but rather comes from Bishop Lightfoot, for reasons unknown to me (but as I recall he did specify Jerusalem time).

Note that Ussher did not count the generations backwards from "now" to establish the date of creation. Rather, he selected as an arbitrary strting point, the beginning of the Julian period and then counted the Biblical dates forward, to a point where he could tie the two forward & backward counts together. If his choice of the beginning of the Julian period is wrong, then so is 4004 BC.

There were numerous Biblical chronologies, all very similar in their judgement of the age of the Earth. Ussher's got printed in a Bible around 1700, and thus he got famous, and his became the Biblical chronology, when it is really one undistinguished amongst many.

I will also note that in my first edition facsimle (1777) of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in the Astronomy section, Ussher's creation date of 4004 BC is given as the beginning of the universe. At that time, nobody had any reason to question the Biblical chronology. But the progress of the science of astronomy in later years eliminated such short chronologies from scientific contention.

Well, no. I think the laws of physics are creations by God, tools for us to accomplish some goal.

Tim Thompson, have you refuted some of the bad astronomy at http://www.creationscience.com/? I'll be interested to read some your debunkings. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
~AstroMike

I would simply posit: The only way to answer your question is to wait and see if any other planets are ever colonised.

My bet is, not. Of course, I only have religious reasons for believing that; if man were given enough time I'm sure that it's within the scope of human achievement. But because of (a) lack of time, and (b) changes in world needs in the coming years which will push planetary exploration onto a back-burner, I believe that although we might have a few more unmanned missions to Mars or the like, or even a there-and-back-again manned mission in the Apollo tradition, a permanent or semi-permanent settlement won't actually happen.

No, I don't know how long we've got. I do know that it's a limited time, and my gut feel is that it can be measured in decades--and only a few of those--rather than centuries.

Yep, I'm one of those 'loonies' who not only believes in a young Earth, I believe in a near-future end event. Of course, I get both from reading the same Book.

The (sorry, not witty enough to put anything here today) Curtmudgeon

Tim, can you please get me some bibliography for this? No, I'm not accusing you of making it up, I really want to see what this is about. I don't expect you to have the exact names of the ancient document(s); just whatever lead you have for it, and I'll start digging from there.

The (I've used a library or two in my time) Curtmudgeon

On the JEDP Theory: Glenn Miller at the Christian Think-Tank has a survey of recent critical scholarship on it. One good recent work on it is John Sailhamer's 'The Pentateuch as Narrative', although Holding's review in the linked page says that it's a scholarly work not for the faint at heart.

Essentially, the JEDP, or Documentary, Hypothesis is old-hat, and is not supported by the majority of current scholars in the field, even those who do not approach the Bible from a fundamentalist/literalist viewpoint.

The (hmm, I need a new phrase book) Curtmudgeon

On October 23, 2001, Tim Thompson wrote:
Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with your debate, but this really interests me. I'm quite ignorant about this subject, and I always thought that the Hertzprung-Russel diagram was devised from the physics having already been worked out. Was the HR diagram corrected in any way after the timescale and processes of stellar evolution had been determined? Just wondering.

Cheers,

JB

__________________
Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness. ...in the principles of evolution we have had our answer: of men elsewhere... there will be none, forever. - Loren Eisely, The Immense Journey, 1956.

Red Sirius

Seeking to answer Curtmudgeon's query, I surprised myself by discovering this paper. I had not heard before that the "red Sirius" anomaly might apply only to observations at heliacal risng & setting (heliacal rising of a star is the first time it becomes visible again in the moring, after being lost in the daylight; heliacal setting is the last visibilty of the star as it sets in the evening sky, about to disappear in the sun's glow).

A physical interpretation of the 'red Sirius' anomaly
D.C.B. Whittet
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 310(2): 355-359, 1999

Abstract: The controversy over whether the brightest star, Sirius (alpha CMa; HR 2491), was red in visual appearance some 2000 years ago, as suggested by Ptolemy amongst others, is re-examined from a physical perspective. Objections to hypotheses based on evolutionary events within the Sirius binary system itself are briefly reviewed. Scenarios that invoke reddening caused by foreground extinction in the interstellar medium or in the Earth's atmosphere are examined in detail to determine whether they offer viable alternatives. It is deduced that only atmospheric extinction is capable of producing appropriate changes in the colour and brightness of Sirius. This result concurs with the findings of Ceragioli, who deduced, from a re-evaluation of the historical evidence and the cultural role of Sirius in Greek and Roman society, that 'red Sirius' refers to observations made at the heliacal risings and settings of the star. Both physical and historical evidence are thus consistent with an interpretation of the 'red Sirius' anomaly based on reddening in the terrestrial atmosphere.

Other sources:

The colour of Sirius in ancient times
P.A.L. ChapmanRietschi
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 36(4): 337-350, December 1995

The Stellar Field in the Vicinity of Sirius and the Color Enigma
J.M. Bonnetbidaud & C. Gry
Astronomy and Astrophysics 252(1): 193-197, December, 1991

Abstract: Several ancient texts have suggested that the bright star Sirius may have been red in the recent past. We present here new evidence from an observation record found in Chinese sources (approximately 100 BC) in which mention is made of a colour change of Sirius. In this paper, we also report on photometric observations of the stellar field around Sirius with the aim to find the possible causes of the colour change(s) of the stellar system within historical times. We proposed as possible causes, objects external to Sirius A-B, namely a small interstellar cloud or a third body interacting with the system. We show that both could have caused an observed reddening effect consistent with the historical record, and we find that two stars in the field may have the right characteristics and orbits to interact with Sirius.

An Early-Medieval Account on the Red Color of Sirius and its Astrophysical Implications
W. Schlosser & W. Bergmann
Nature 318(6041): 45-46, 1985

http://www.louisville.edu/~aoclar01/...omy/Sirius.htm

I would also humbly suggest that this whole argument about stellar evolution seems to be pegged to the notion that the stellar types we find in the HR diagram were just created at that apparent stage 10k years ago, and their light was created enroute to us so it would appear at the proper moment. All well and good. God can do anything for any reason which pleases Him, but such an argument cannot pass any sort of scientific muster because it is not falsifiable. So, we seem to be arguing past each other and it is really fascinating to watch, but it seems to be a classic case of 'it's elephants all the way down'. Who can prove you're wrong?

Jovianboy: ... I always thought that the Hertzprung-Russel diagram was devised from the physics having already been worked out.

Nope. The HR diagram was independently arrived at observationally by Henry Norris Russell & Ejnar Hertzsprung, around 1900 or in the late 1800's, well before it was even known that physics was involved. I have a copy of George Ellery Hale's book The New Heavans, from 1924, in which he identifies red giant stars as collapsing protostellar clouds. That is quite the opposite from today's view of red giants as stars that have already passed through the main sequence, and are now "past their prime".

The ability of physical theory to independently reproduce the strictly observational HR diagram is a major success for stellar evolution theory.

On 2002-07-01 20:40, The Curtmudgeon wrote, and once again ignored my question:

"So are saying you choose to ignore the preponderance of scientific evidence that does not agree with the literal translation of the Bible in favor of the literal translation that is supported by no* scientific evidence?

<a name="20020702.2:4"> page 20020702.2:4 aka 4.5
On 2002-07-01 22:42, beskeptical wrote:
On 2002-07-01 20:40, The Curtmudgeon wrote, and once again ignored my question:

"So are saying you choose to ignore the preponderance of scientific evidence that does not agree with the literal translation of the Bible in favor of the literal translation that is supported by no* scientific evidence?
------ Nope What Hub' the RUB says is according to NOVA's to the moon
NASA spent 20 billion$ to finnaly say 4.5 billion years ago..
Look do some Math {and show it} even at the current rate {don't use it}
how far away from Earth would the rock of the moon be?
Yuck. {it was in "THIS" orbit around the Galaxy when it occured [Darnit]

HUb',

if you're wondering about how the Moon can be very old when it is receding from us at the rate it is, well, the rate of recession of the Moon is not constant.

A good explanation of this can be found at

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

written by none other than Tim Thompson. I'm sure there are plenty of other good explanations to be found online.

AstroMike: Tim Thompson, have you refuted some of the bad astronomy at (The Center for Scientific Creation)? I'll be interested to read some your debunkings.

Just because somebody calls it "scientific" creation does not necessarily make it so. Walter Brown is definitely one of the light weights in the creation biz, though you would never know it from the way he markets himself.

I have addressed His claims specifically on plate tectonics: On Creationism & Plate Tectonics and On Walter Brown & Plate Tectonics (1997). The only astronomy I can think of, where I have criticized Brown is The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System, already mentioned by sts60.

So HUb', are you saying you are the Curtmudgeon?

Where does the Bible say the Earth Moon distance is evidence for the Bible's validity?

What I'm saying by my question, and the word preponderance is part of that question, is that no matter how many pieces of the scientific theory of the evolution of the Earth and the Universe you want to quibble with, the overwhelming amount of evidence is undeniable.

Where is the equivalent amount of evidence supporting the literal translation of the Bible? Where is any evidence?

But, BeSkep, you were warned in my first follow-up post that I would be selectively ignoring questions willy-nilly. So don't berate me for doing what I already told you I'd be doing.

As for your particular question, the answer is "Yes, and couldn't you tell that yourself from my earlier posts?"

With absolutely no tongue in cheek at all, I affirm that when modern scientific theories clash with a literal reading of the Bible, I choose to consider that the human scientists are mistaken, by omission or commission. I contend that the actual evidential facts, as opposed to any interpretation of them, can be reconciled with the Bible, even if in particular cases I do not know how to do so myself.

The (sorry, I'll find some more snappy parenthetical remarks soon, I promise) Curtmudgeon