Exposing PseudoAstronomy

February 29, 2012

God Said Stars Are Made from Water?


This is a quick post that is kinda another “WTF?” post from something that the young-Earth creationist (YEC) Institute for Creation Research’s (ICR) “science” writer Brian Thomas put out in his article, “What Causes a Galaxy’s Magnetism?

About the first two-thirds of the article is basically parroting a press release about a new map of the Galaxy’s magnetic field. The jist of the press release is that a team of astronomers has mapped our galaxy’s magnetic field to higher precision and accuracy than had been done previously with an eye towards studying extragalactic magnetic fields: you need to know what’s in the way before you can figure out what’s going on with a far-off object. It can also act, over time, on slightly magnetized dust and gas within the galaxy.

But – gasp! – we don’t know why the Galaxy has a magnetic field to begin with! As the ICR article states, “Secular astronomers are no closer to understanding what could cause galactic magnetic fields than they were when they first detected the fields over a century ago.” (That’s the first sentence of the article.) You kinda know what’s coming next … a God of the Gaps argument.

From what I can tell – and this is WAY outside of my field so if any astronomer who knows more about this reads this post, please post in the Comments – the statement is true that we don’t really know what caused the Galaxy’s magnetic field to form in the first place. But, a very recent article has an idea that it may have formed from a background field “seed” that became stronger as the Galaxy formed. So it’s not like we’re totally ign’ant, there are ideas out there.

But no, apparently that’s not good enough. Creationists have to figure it out from the Bible, and …

“In 2008, physicist D. Russell Humphreys proposed a Bible-centered model for the origin of magnetic fields that is consistent with the overall strength of the spiral Milky Way’s magnetic field. If God formed the stars and galaxies during the fourth day of creation using water that He had created earlier, and if those water molecules were all originally aligned, their tiny magnetic fields would have combined to form a galactic magnetic field that has decayed to something that looks like today’s observed field strength.”

Yup, that’s right. The premise of this creationist proposal is that stars are made from water. I really don’t think anything else needs to be said at this point.

13 Comments »

  1. Exciting stuff for my “water as an archaeological object” project. Now I can even include stars!!!

    Comment by Johan Normark — February 29, 2012 @ 10:34 am | Reply

    • water is the basis of all life and energy and is the reason for black holes and magnetic fields, caused through the relationship hydrogen has with different elements which is why hydrogen is the soul of the universe. folding and bending itself through itself known as “Space-Time” it is the soul of man and of the cosmos linking us all together as one and multi entities at thesame time. This reasoning is the only reasoning that supports all theories of creation and evolution and relativity and gravity and supernatural phenomenah. Water is interdimensional, because of its hydrogen content which is why it cannt be sucked up by black holes, the blackholes appearance is genrally based on the activity of the given body of water near it.

      Comment by Atiba Edwards — January 30, 2015 @ 5:16 am | Reply

  2. I want to say something here but what can be said that is new. The idea that you or “science” does not have all the answers and therefore God must be believed is only an argument for the shallowist of thinkers. I want to say that but then here is a guy with a Phd. in physics making that argument. I am not about to be swayed but I can imagine how reinforcing this is to those who want to believe this way. Somewhere down the road this insanity will not be listened to.

    Comment by Jim Campbell — February 29, 2012 @ 2:29 pm | Reply

  3. I am waiting for homeopathy proponents to somehow incorporate this line of reasoning.

    Comment by Jay Pea — February 29, 2012 @ 10:40 pm | Reply

    • Oh wow, I didn’t even think of that. That’d be … wow. I worry that anything I make up that I think is over the top here is not over the top enough and they’d actually say something like that. I think you just made my head hurt.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — February 29, 2012 @ 10:43 pm | Reply

      • No matter how over the top you get Stuart, you will never out-crazy those types. Here’s an example of somebody I used to be associated with (in a past life) http://www.evenstarcreations.com/index.php … make sure you’re wearing sunglasses before you click that link😉
        for a real hoot, you could subscribe to her newsletter … on second thoughts, better not, it might be all too much for you

        Comment by Jenny — February 29, 2012 @ 11:25 pm

      • I am sure there is a homeopathic remedy that could cure your headache. Take two vials of Star Waterâ„¢ (the magnetic properties of Star Waterâ„¢ causes the initial medicine to adhere to the water particles and thus retain the potency after 30x dilutions) and call me in the morning.

        I better be careful what I say, I don’t want to give anyone any ideas…

        Comment by Jay Pea — March 2, 2012 @ 12:27 am

  4. Stars made of water? I think we need to say one more thing to this “Let’s all prey, Please don’t flush our sun!!” oh crap I think I just came up with a new disaster movie.

    Comment by Damon Schooler — February 29, 2012 @ 11:31 pm | Reply

  5. i’m no expert of course but this got me thinking .. theoretically if you put a large enough amount of water (which i guess would turn to ice, but whatever) into empty space, wouldn’t it condense under its own gravity and begin fusion? . like the first stars were hydrogen and helium “clouds” , so wouldn’t it work with water ice as well? . i’m thinking we are sure the stars weren’t made from water though because there would be way more oxygen and less helium in the universe . i’m sure i could be wrong about all of this ^^

    Comment by Walter Walkie — March 1, 2012 @ 1:42 am | Reply

    • First, it would need to be a VERY large cloud of water. But, (one of the) problem(s) is that water would not have existed in the early universe because, first off, oxygen would not have existed. The first stars were almost exclusively hydrogen and helium – NONE of the heavier elements (unless we’re going with the YEC view, and then you can do whatever you want ’cause God can do anything). It took the first generations of stars to enrich the interstellar material with heavier elements that would have allowed water to form.

      Beyond that, you get to issues of water dissociating at high enough temperatures or under UV light and it becomes a big mess I don’t want to think about when I need to get up in <6 hours.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — March 1, 2012 @ 2:11 am | Reply

      • haha yeh^ i was advocating for the devil yes , yeh i think if god exists or existed (which i doubt) he would do things in an elegant way … no story is more exciting and elegant to me than modern cosmology … starting out simple with hydrogen and helium and evolving heavier elements in the first stars . and yeh when I said large i meant very extremely large hehe like a blob of water as massive as our sun – and that is completely ridiculous . but yes of course if YEC god can do anything he could do it this way or any other way and hide evidence or whatever . YEC god is so boring

        Comment by Walter Walkie — March 2, 2012 @ 12:43 am

      • “unless we’re going with the YEC view”

        Unfortunately Humphreys, in the paper linked to by the ICR article, is going with the YEC view. He explains how God, having initially created all that water, then transmuted most of the neutrons in the oxygen to protons thereby ending up with mostly hydrogen.

        Why God would do things that way – unless to validate the book he foresaw some bronze age mystic would later write – is not explained.

        Comment by David Evans — March 7, 2012 @ 1:25 pm

  6. […] he doesn’t make any actual predictions that were confirmed with this research. Take a look at Stuart Robbins’ post on this subject for a little more […]

    Pingback by 2012 in Review: Astronomy « Eye on the ICR — January 3, 2013 @ 1:30 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: