One of the few stars that almost everyone knows and can point to is Betelgeuse. Wikipedia says: “Betelgeuse is generally the eleventh-brightest star in the night sky and second-brightest in the constellation of Orion (after Rigel).”
It’s been in the news lately. PhysOrg posted this article a week ago: Waiting for Betelgeuse: what’s up with the tempestuous star? They say:
Have you noticed that Orion the Hunter — one of the most iconic and familiar of the wintertime constellations — is looking a little… different as of late? The culprit is its upper shoulder star Alpha Orionis, aka Betelgeuse, which is looking markedly faint, the faintest it has been for the 21st century. When will this nearby supernova candidate pop, and what would look like if it did?
Betelgeuse is always worth keeping an eye on, as it’s one of the closest candidates in our galaxy for a nearby supernova. We see supernovae frequently in distant galaxies, but such an event has not been witnessed in our galaxy in the telescopic era: Kepler’s Star in 1604 in the constellation Ophiuchus was the last supernova observed in the Milky Way, though a supernova in the nearby Large Magellanic Cloud put on a good show in 1987. A red giant like Betelgeuse lives fast and dies young, exhausting its supply of hydrogen fuel in just under 10 million years. The star is destined to undergo a core implosion and massive collapse and rebound as a Type II supernova. Such an explosion could occur 100,000 years from now… or tonight.
Is the fading act a prelude to a truly spectacular show, or a false alarm? Astronomers are unsure, but a supernova event just 700-odd light-years away would be an unrepresented [sic] opportunity to study one up close.
That’s the background. Betelgeuse may or may not be ready to explode — according to all the hell-bound secular astronomers. Now let’s hear from the creation scientists at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.
Their headline is Betelgeuse: Supernova or Fading Star? It was written by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner. Here’s AIG’s biographical information about Danny. They say he taught physics and astronomy until he joined AIG, and his undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University. Here are some excerpts from Danny’s article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Recent news reports [link omitted] have said that Betelgeuse is soon to erupt in a supernova. If Betelgeuse were to go supernova, then it would become incredibly bright, about as bright as the moon, rendering it easily visible during the day. But its light would be packed into a tiny pinpoint, making it difficult to look directly at it. That would be quite a spectacle, a supernova this bright would be unparalleled in human history. But is it likely to happen?
Well, what does Hambo’s astronomer think? After a few paragraphs of textbook information, he says:
Keep in mind that this possibility [of going supernova] is based upon ideas of stellar evolution over vast ages. [Egad, vast ages!] That assumes that astronomers’ models are correct. There are good reasons to doubt this because astronomers often are surprised when stars change. For instance, a relatively bright supernova in 1987 caused rewriting of astronomy textbooks. It happened because that supernova didn’t obey any of the expectations. Also, keep in mind that stellar evolution is based upon long time periods, something that biblical chronology does not allow.
Aha — it’s based on that “long time periods” stuff those secular scientists are so fond of. But they’re all fools! So what’s The Truth™? Danny tells us:
What are supernovae then? They could be processes like what most astronomers think but on a much shorter timescale. Or they could be something quite different, not yet contemplated by astronomers.
So what are they? Danny ends his article like this:
There is yet no good theory of stellar astronomy from a biblical creation viewpoint. [What?] That is why we need more astronomers committed to biblical creation — to develop such models.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Danny doesn’t have a clue! This is the first time we’ve ever encountered anything like this from a creationist. We always assumed those guys knew everything. Are you as shocked as we are, dear reader?
Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.