Requesting help from scientists/astronomers on the forum.

[vulcanlogician]

What is his precise objection regarding the matter?  

Astronomy isn't Science:
The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. 
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".
Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...?  OR
Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?
"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.
"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
Uh Ohh...
"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm
Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy. 
By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

Here it is, in all its glory. I think he's trying to intimidate me intellectually, but I know how to spot pretentious drivel when I see it. If I prepare a succinct argument, I can knock this guy down a peg.