Dec. 6, 2011: NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope presents a festive holiday greeting that’s out of this world. The bipolar star-forming region nearly 2,000 light-years from us, called Sharpless 2-106, looks like a soaring, celestial snow angel. The outstretched “wings” of the nebula record the contrasting imprint of heat and motion against the backdrop of a colder medium. Source: NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

Two weeks ago, Fox News published a slide deck entitled, EyePoppers: The best science photos of the week. We have been taking the time to examine many of them to demonstrate varying degrees of evolutionary propaganda. Thus far we have successfully confronted each and have observed them wilt under the scrutinization of logic and simple scientific tests and observations.

Today’s slide and caption however, require a keener eye than most. In order to have already assessed what direction I am heading with today’s slide and caption, you would have to be a full time student of Across the Fruited Plain.

Dec. 6, 2011: NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope presents a festive holiday greeting that’s out of this world. The bipolar star-forming region nearly 2,000 light-years from us, called Sharpless 2-106, looks like a soaring, celestial snow angel. The outstretched “wings” of the nebula record the contrasting imprint of heat and motion against the backdrop of a colder medium.

One of the major black-eyes on evolution theory is the fact we see stars die, (novas & supernovas approximately every 30 years), but we have never observed a star forming or being “born.”

Now if evolution theory were true, and the universe got its start from the Big Bang, then one of the areas of evolution that must have occurred aside from:

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Organic Evolution

Micro Evolution

Macro Evolution

is called Stellar and Planetary Evolution. (Each one defined here)

The Big Bang Models demand that the planet and stars are still evolving. If that is true, we ought to be observing star births and they ought to at least equal star deaths. The glaringly unmistakeable error of astronomy however is two-fold:

1.) Not Enough Dead Stars

We do not have enough dead stars to equal 16 billion years worth of star explosions–16 Billion divided by 30 equals just over 500,000,000 (533333333.333333).

Now, if we were supposed to see 350 dead stars and are only seeing 300, then it can more easily be argued that we’re just not seeing the other 50 out there somewhere. However, when the evolution timeline prepares us to observe over FIVE HUNDRED MILLION nova or supernova rings and we only see THREE HUNDRED, that is a major discrepancy.  Three hundred rings however, is precisely  consistent with what you would expect to see after only a few thousand years as the Bible maintains.

2.) No Star Birth Ever Observed

The reason that I mentioned that this slide example was trickier than most is because they actually tip their hand on the slide, rather than on the caption. Notice that the top of the slide says: “Star-forming Region S106.”

This is to intentionally deceive you into believing:

A. Stellar Evolution has been vindicated and proven

B. That star births are being observed

What you will find consistent with every false report of a star birth is the fact that it is getting brighter. They point their telescopes out into space and if they observe a spot getting brighter, they automatically and enthusiastically assume that a star is being born. That however is hardly conclusive evidence. Seeing a spot getting brighter can just as equally mean that a dust cloud is clearing and revealing the star that is already behind it.

I would classify that as a star discovery, not a star forming!

God’s word says he made the stars and you know what??

I’m with Yahweh on this one.

“God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” Genesis 1:16

==============================

Science vs. Evolution: Fossils, Cavemen, & Transitional Forms

Science vs. Evolution: Primitive Weapons Do Not Prove Primitive People

Science vs. Evolution: The Relationship Scam

Science vs. Evolution: A Mammoth Lie

Science vs. Evolution: Pre-Historic or Pre-Flood?

Science vs. Evolution: Deconstructing the 500 Million Year Old Tegopelte

About these ads