Creationist Peer Review

A note from the editors — play the ball, not the man

CEN Technical Journal (now CMI’s Journal of Creation) 13 (1) 1999 – source.

The problem with peer review as practised by creationists, is that the peer reviewers are creationists.

This is a cheap shot, I know, but I don’t mean it like that – not entirely, anyway. Continue reading

A New Oldest Galaxy: z8_GND_5296

Keck TelescopesWe have a new contender for the title of “oldest known galaxy”: it has a redshift of z = 7.51, corresponding to an age only 700 million years younger than the universe as a whole, and has been assigned the code z8_GND_5296. Discoveries like this happen fairly often, as there is a sustained effort of astronomers staring at little red dots with similarly arcane designations in the hope of teasing out a little more information about the early evolution of galaxies. Continue reading

Star Struck – Quick DpSU

Blue straggler stars in the Milky Way (Click for larger image)

The Hubble Telescope captures blue straggler stars in the Milky Way bulge Credit: NASA, ESA, W. Clarkson (Indiana University and UCLA), and K. Sahu (STScl)

A survey of the centre of the Galaxy by Hubble has revealed a number of “Young Blue Stars”, which Brian Thomas claims could not exist in “standard long-age cosmologies”. They also don’t like the explanation for the star’s formation:

long-age astronomers have been forced to resort to a non-explanation that is indistinguishable from an appeal to magic: that blue stars somehow formed in the distant past through unknown, unobserved processes.

Actually, if you go look at the news release for the survey that Thomas links to, their explanation doesn’t seem to fit that description:

It is not clear how blue stragglers form. A common theory is that they emerge from binary pairs. As the more massive star evolves and expands, the smaller star gains material from its companion. This stirs up hydrogen fuel and causes the growing star to undergo nuclear fusion at a faster rate. It burns hotter and bluer, like a massive young star.

Make up your own mind…

The ICR also seems to have a problem with star formation in general:

The physical barriers to star formation by collapsing gases—the standard nature-only story of star formation—are prohibitive, because the denser a cloud of gas becomes, the more vigorously its particles repel one another.

*sigh* This is why you need to give ’em a good shock before they’ll collapse. See here and here.

They also argue that nobody has ever observed a star forming. What, exactly, is their definition of “observed”? Stars take time, a lot more time than we have been watching them. We can see, however, star nurseries – do these not count? Or are they disputing even that?

On a related note, the article admits that the stars are 26,000 light years away, still longer than their chronology allows. How do they explain them?

Why did I ask?

The scientific evidence shows, and the Bible clearly states, that blue stars were put in place on purpose recently.4

Naturally, the citation is to the Bible (there have been a lot of those lately):

“Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion” (Amos 5:8)

No mention of a purpose (or blue stars, or for that matter the whole starlight problem) there, and I have a hunch that he has misinterpreted the entire verse. Ah, well, no surprises here…

Elements Are Dependable across the Universe

….and this is “evidence for creation” how?

Arguably this is just evidence for the reliability of scientific methods of dating the universe. The ICR gave up on c-decay as an explanation for the starlight problem some time ago, hence their current rejection of the possibility of everyday changes in physical laws. Basically, this is just a justification for future uses of goddidit:

Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these laws were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator.

Aside from that, the rest of the article is pretty accurate.

So, now for the next category: “The Earth Was Uniquely Created“…