"Creation Science" on astrophysics?

quote:

---

Furthermore, the my biblical rejection of biological 'Evolution' does not affect my views on cosmic 'evolution'. Cosmology is a separate discipline from biology; they rely on different methodology and logic.

---

So let me get this straight: humankind has existed for 6000 years or so, while the Solar System has been around for 4.5 billion years, as evinced by the many measurements of radioisotopes that have been conducted on meteorites, moon rocks, and the Isua Formation from Greenland. But these identical physical measurements somehow don't apply to hominid/human fossil strata from Hadar, or Olduvai Gorge, or the cave paintings in France. Are you saying that the normal laws of physics apply only outside Earth's biosphere? Or am I reading you wrong?
If you want to discuss this in a new thread in a biology forum, feel free to start one.

quote:

---

Cosmology starts with a principle (General Relativity, Quantum mechanics, etc.) and speculates what the past would be like. Evolution starts with how the world is today (i.e. species have similarities) and tries to find principles that would make this happen.

---

I would have to disagree. Cosmology starts with observations of how the universe is today - galaxies with redshifts, the microwave background radiation, neutrinos coming out of the Sun, the interactions of protons colliding - and tries to find principles that would make this happen. It and evolutionary biology use the same methodology, except that it's much easier to do experiments on E. coli than on omega Centauri.

quote:

---

The Big Bang does have experimental data.

---

I disagree. There is only observational data for the BB - redshifts, the cosmic background radiation, etc., but not nearly as much as there is for abiogenesis and particularly for "macroevolution." Far more fancy molecules and aggregates than amino acids have been prepared (experiment!) under plausible early-Earth conditions in the lab, and observed in meteorites. Paleontology and molecular biology provide many observations every week that point to common descent of all life on earth.

And how many studies are you aware of in which galaxies have been prepared in the lab? Asteroids, even? Why two utterly separate standards of evidence for astronomy vs biology, other than you "don't like" the conclusions of biology?

quote:

---

land mammals evolving into whales

---

Google up "whale" and "Thewissen" or "Gingerich" in the same search. It's been done, all right. New fossils to support that transition come out of Pakistan each year. Try "Acanthostega" for the fish to tetrapod fossils.