Which theory has more predictive success a creationary one or a evolutionary on e in astronomy?

Question

- large gas giants like Jupiter have immense magnetic fields and are relatively warm
- the moon is relatively close the to earth given the rate of recession
- the mix of supernova seen?
- the high magnetic field of the earth given the rate of drop

which view is the more successful predictively?
what are the predictive successes or failures of both?

there is evolution in astronomy
- universe from nothing
- stellar evolution
- planetary evolution
then
- life from non life
- single cell to multiple
- asexual to sexual
- simple to complex
- ape to man
I would agree with none of the above

Answer 1

First of all, evolution is a biological theory, not an astronomical one. However, creation 'scientists' have made several comments that are relevant to astronomy.

Let's see: With the assumption of a universe less than 10,000 years old, we shouldn't see anything farther than 10,000 light years. In fact, we see things that are billions of light years away from us. That's one against creationism.

While the magnetic field is decreasing, we also know that it undergoes periodic reversals (we have the records of previous reversals in sea floor readings and various rock samples) and decays during those reversals. All this says is that we are currently in a reversal. Not too surprising since they happen with some frequency. The reversals are known to last thousands of years.

The pressures in the core of Jupiter are high enough for hydrogen to become metalic. This produces the high magnetic fields. It turns out that Jupiter is large enough that simple radiative cooling would have been slow enough to give the temperatures now observed. The moons are heated by tidal forces. These effects can be calculated and compared to actual measurements. Another one against creationism.

The way stars change in composition over time can be modelled from our understandings of nuclear physics. When applied to the sun, and comparing to its known composition, we find that it is about 5 billion years old. This compares favorably to the ages of moon rocks determined by radioactive dating (NOT carbon dating!). Creationists have no explanations for these things. Another shot against creationism.

The moon's recession has not been constant and is probably more than average right now due to a resonsnce effect with the oceans on earth. Detailed calculations show it has never been closer than 150,000 miles, even billions of years ago.

The stars in globular clusters all were formed at about the same time. Using the known ways that stars develop over time and the observed HR diagrams for these clusters, we can estimate their ages. These ages put globular clusters as some of the oldest things in the universe at over 10 billion years. Once again, creationist 'young universe' models fail miserably.

General relativity (which can be tested in other ways also) can be applied to the universe as a whole and predicts a changing universe with singularities. The was where the Big Bang idea originally came from: the equations that work for gravity. The red shifts predicted by this model have been observed and act as this model predicts. When the thermodynamic effects are taken into account, predictions of the composition of the early universe can be made that agree well with observations. Creationists usually ignore the sucesses of this model and give none of their own. Another failure of creationism.

Need I go on? Creationist models fail miserably in astronomy. They also fail miserably in other areas of physics and biology.

Answer 2

These two theories are actually converge in Artificial Intelligence. When you want to create something, you think. By thinking you will have a basic idea, mutate your basic idea, select the most proper mutated idea, which later become a basic idea, and so on. So in other word, creation is an evolution process inside a creator mind.
When I make a program I never end up with the result that I want in the first place because I always improve on what is in my ideosphere, so the resulting program is always better than the first program I want.

In astronomy the evolution itself is a constructive process, where stable planetary systems survive when unstable one don't.
Stabilizing a planetary system is a pretty hard job you know, I ever try to do that in simulation and I can successfully do it for a system with 5 objects after several trials, add the number of objects and it will be far more difficult. See this

http://www.geocities.com/orichalc_of_moon/Special/GPIntro.html

Most of the case when scientist create new technique to solve problems never encountered before, they will do it in trial and error manner. Theories are selected according to their fitness with observational result, and by doing so the theories evolve, and scientist create the theories.

Hope this help.

Answer 3

Well, the evolutionary model of solar system formation would appear to have significant merit since we have detected well over 200 extrasolar planets in various stellar configurations.

(http://www.extrasolar.net/ - a little dated very informative, the artwork is cool, and the stellar diagrams are very nice).

Scientists are constantly refining the modeling used based on the observations made, since we have (until Marcy et al in the 1990's) had NO basis for comparison, now we have a small body of statistical comparison which we are trying to determine general rules from.

As far as additional evidence, that is the essential nature of thousands of scientists inquiries , discovering the nature of star-system formation is currently in it's infancy.

The predominant model holds various opinions as being the best of breed however, new evidence will of course contradict our established models and they will be adjusted accordingly.

Creationism as such does not speak to the mechanisms other than to serve as a metaphorical analog for the formation of the Sol star system.

If we were in the position of having to explain the current scientific understanding of stellar formation to a bunch of herders or shepherds with no significant notable scientific achievements the biblical Creation story actually works pretty well and has the merit of being at least metaphorically largely correct. This is not the case for even a small fraction of other creation myths.

However it should be noted that I do not subscribe to the idea that one begets the other or vice versa.

Answer 4

You see, whenever any process if discovered, through the scientific theory of "Godidit!", you're always 100% right. The problem is waiting for real scientists to do the work, then you claim it in the name of your religion. Edit: "And they have no answer to the polonium halos which contradict their evolutionary theories." Rofl. When was geography part of evolution, genius. You didn't give a single example of how creation helped to explain new evidence - you basically gave a perfect example of Godidit! Scientists are wrong! "All the law of nature point to an omnipotent, intelligent designer" No, they point to a blind tinkerer. Learn some actual laws of nature first.

Answer 5

Evolution is a theory in biology and has nothing whatsoever to do with astronomy. Creationism is not a theory at all, and therefore has no predictive success whatsoever.

Answer 6

Hi. My opinion is an evolutionary theory has more predictive value. Some things, such as the periods vs luminosity of Cepheid variables, are not considered in creation based theories.

Answer 7

astronomy is a science.

it is unique in that it is based solely upon observations. by that, i mean we can't conduct studies of celestial bodies in laboritories.

creationism is not a science. it is a faith.

there is little point asking a question as to the predictive powers of a faith-based reasoning against that of science- based reasoning.

science doesn't try to answer 'why' evolution is the second most successful scientific theory we have.

the first actually makes no sense at all - quantum mechanics...

Answer 8

there isn't really an evolutionary theory of astrophysics. Evolution is biology. Stars go through stages of development but don't confuse that with evolution.

Answer 9

Creation tells us nothing. Therefore, evolution. Maybe you should go here for answers to those http://www.talkorigins.org . Trust me on this - I've studied astronomy and physics for many years.

Answer 10

Questions of creation versus evolution are irrelevant to astronomy.

The universe presents no evidence to indicate the presence or absence of a being that created it, and evolution is an explanation of how life has developed over time on earth.