PDA

View Full Version : The First Simplest Star



David M
12-11-2012, 02:12 AM
I welcome scientific answers to questions I am grappling with.

I am trying to get my head round the formation of the first star resulting out of the Big Bang.

From nothing or a singularity, is supposed to have come all the particles to make up the simplest atoms which are hydrogen. Were any heavier elements formed at that time of the Big Bang?

We have hydrogen gas from which the stars are supposed to me made. Somehow the hydrogen atoms come together before being turned to helium which is at the center of the star.

The problem I have is understanding how the hydrogen gas comes together. A gas will fill the volume it is contained in. There is a simple law that defines the relationship between pressure, temperature and volume. In free space the hydrogen atoms will naturally spread apart, there is not enough attraction/gravity to pull the atoms together. Here on earth, we simply force atoms together in a closed vessel. At the time of the Big Bang, we have an open vessel that is empty space to infinity.

We are told that the heavier elements are formed from exploding stars so that is why I asked if elements could have formed before the first star was formed.

There is no evidence in the universe to show that stars are forming. It would be a very slow process on a long timescale that makes it difficult to observe. What is put forward as evidence of stars forming, some will say is the same evidence for stars that have exploded and died. The gas and dust clouds are not necessarily evidence to support the claim that stars that are forming, though if stars could form, this is the likely material they will be made from.

I have read statements that stars form our of gas and dust clouds. These stars must be different to the first stars that are supposed to be produced from just hydrogen gas. The dust (whatever that consists of must be made of heavier elements that has been made from exploding stars.

While pondering how the first stars could form, I also have questions as to why the universe is not more uniform than it is. From the extremity of the universe looking in, some say that the universe is more uniform than some cosmologists say it is. Our solar system some will say is in an insignificant part of the universe while others say that it is within one light year of the center and that is quite significant.

The questions I am trying to get my head around again start from the singularity or Big Bang.
What was the singularity composed of if not nothing? Would the singularity be composed of all the simplest components from which photons, electrons, neutron, are made? Even if there is the fundamental component such as a quark, we would expect the singularity to be made up of a uniform single component. Any reaction and formation of atoms would be expected to take place uniformly.

From this uniform singularity we get an expansion. This expansion is also thought to be a series of expansions of time and space. While I get my head around this, the one question I have is; should not the expansion all be the same? Should we not see a uniformity? From a single point, around which is only space, all the uniform components fly away. Should not the components radiate out in a uniform pattern? The conditions that should be uniform as the components fly apart and come together. Like blowing up a balloon that is a perfect sphere, all points at the extremity and points at set distances from the origin at the center should be the same temperature and pressure and flying apart from each other at the same speed. We expect conditions to be the same at equidistant points from the center. How do we explain the all the differences we see? We would expect a uniform distribution of suns, solar systems and even planets like earth.

Is it possible in simple terns to give answers to the questions I am grappling with?



David

jce
08-18-2014, 03:50 PM
I welcome scientific answers to questions I am grappling with.

I am trying to get my head round the formation of the first star resulting out of the Big Bang.

From nothing or a singularity, is supposed to have come all the particles to make up the simplest atoms which are hydrogen. Were any heavier elements formed at that time of the Big Bang?

We have hydrogen gas from which the stars are supposed to me made. Somehow the hydrogen atoms come together before being turned to helium which is at the center of the star.

The problem I have is understanding how the hydrogen gas comes together. A gas will fill the volume it is contained in. There is a simple law that defines the relationship between pressure, temperature and volume. In free space the hydrogen atoms will naturally spread apart, there is not enough attraction/gravity to pull the atoms together. Here on earth, we simply force atoms together in a closed vessel. At the time of the Big Bang, we have an open vessel that is empty space to infinity.

We are told that the heavier elements are formed from exploding stars so that is why I asked if elements could have formed before the first star was formed.

There is no evidence in the universe to show that stars are forming. It would be a very slow process on a long timescale that makes it difficult to observe. What is put forward as evidence of stars forming, some will say is the same evidence for stars that have exploded and died. The gas and dust clouds are not necessarily evidence to support the claim that stars that are forming, though if stars could form, this is the likely material they will be made from.

I have read statements that stars form our of gas and dust clouds. These stars must be different to the first stars that are supposed to be produced from just hydrogen gas. The dust (whatever that consists of must be made of heavier elements that has been made from exploding stars.

While pondering how the first stars could form, I also have questions as to why the universe is not more uniform than it is. From the extremity of the universe looking in, some say that the universe is more uniform than some cosmologists say it is. Our solar system some will say is in an insignificant part of the universe while others say that it is within one light year of the center and that is quite significant.

The questions I am trying to get my head around again start from the singularity or Big Bang.
What was the singularity composed of if not nothing? Would the singularity be composed of all the simplest components from which photons, electrons, neutron, are made? Even if there is the fundamental component such as a quark, we would expect the singularity to be made up of a uniform single component. Any reaction and formation of atoms would be expected to take place uniformly.

From this uniform singularity we get an expansion. This expansion is also thought to be a series of expansions of time and space. While I get my head around this, the one question I have is; should not the expansion all be the same? Should we not see a uniformity? From a single point, around which is only space, all the uniform components fly away. Should not the components radiate out in a uniform pattern? The conditions that should be uniform as the components fly apart and come together. Like blowing up a balloon that is a perfect sphere, all points at the extremity and points at set distances from the origin at the center should be the same temperature and pressure and flying apart from each other at the same speed. We expect conditions to be the same at equidistant points from the center. How do we explain the all the differences we see? We would expect a uniform distribution of suns, solar systems and even planets like earth.

Is it possible in simple terns to give answers to the questions I am grappling with?



David

Hello David

I see you started this thread over a year ago and found no takers. Why am I not surprised! I have a reply to Richard's star formation reference link. I was going to start a new thread on "Star Formation" but I think your topic title will do just fine.

I wonder why Mr. McGough avoided your question from December 2012?
Perhaps he's still thinking it through or maybe was unable to find a satisfactory google result.:lol:

Either way, he has finally come up with something that is worth exposing... er, I mean exploring.

I'll move that topic of the conversation with Richard on star formation over here, and if we can keep it on topic, I suspect the thread won't last long for lack of scientific explanation.

John

L67
08-18-2014, 06:09 PM
Hello David

I see you started this thread over a year ago and found no takers. Why am I not surprised! I have a reply to Richard's star formation reference link. I was going to start a new thread on "Star Formation" but I think your topic title will do just fine.

I wonder why Mr. McGough avoided your question from December 2012?
Perhaps he's still thinking it through or maybe was unable to find a satisfactory google result.:lol:

Either way, he has finally come up with something that is worth exposing... er, I mean exploring.

I'll move that topic of the conversation with Richard on star formation over here, and if we can keep it on topic, I suspect the thread won't last long for lack of scientific explanation.

John

John,

I don't understand your anti science stance. It makes no sense. You could easily educate yourself, but you choose not to. Why?

And why do you think you are qualified to so easily dismiss the evidence from decades of research? Because the Bible shackles your mentality to the primitive age of ignorant people who knew nothing of science.

Also, if God is the creator of human intelligence, then he created humans with the ability to apply logic to something being factual or not. What kind of sense does it make for the writings of the Bible to defy logic from the established facts science has discovered? No flood, flat earth, firmament, Exodus, Adam and eve, etc...

Don't you think an all knowing God is infinitely superior to the mindless crap the Bible reduces him to? The Bible portrays God as grossly incompetent. He couldn't even inspire the writers to ACCURATELY portray how the world works. Instead, he allows the writers to describe the earth in a way that totally defies any logic. Especially given that we know the descriptions in the Bible are patently FALSE.

You asked about star formation. Here you go. Courtesy of Nasa with pictures and all. http://phys.org/news/2013-04-sofia-reveal-massive-star-formation.html

And here is another one. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/04/extreme-galaxy-observed-forming-stars-100-times-rate-of-milky-way.html

Richard Amiel McGough
08-18-2014, 08:10 PM
Hello David

I see you started this thread over a year ago and found no takers. Why am I not surprised! I have a reply to Richard's star formation reference link. I was going to start a new thread on "Star Formation" but I think your topic title will do just fine.

I wonder why Mr. McGough avoided your question from December 2012?
Perhaps he's still thinking it through or maybe was unable to find a satisfactory google result.:lol:

Either way, he has finally come up with something that is worth exposing... er, I mean exploring.

I'll move that topic of the conversation with Richard on star formation over here, and if we can keep it on topic, I suspect the thread won't last long for lack of scientific explanation.

John
You are not surprised because your judgment is corrupted with a false, unjustifiable, irrational, and unrighteous prejudice against me. I am diligent to answer questions. This forum proves it. The fact that one stray post went by unanswered is no mystery given the long conversations that David and I were having in other threads at the same time.

Your insinuation that my answers are nothing by mindless references to google pages reveals your true colors. I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics and understand the information that I post. Unfortunately, neither you or David seem able to understand the most elementary science even when it is explained to you in detail. Case in point: David brought up the issue of star formation in another thread about six months after this one in this post from June 7, 2013 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3767-Test-Everything-in-the-Bible&p=55503#post55503) in the Test Everything in the Bible (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3767-Test-Everything-in-the-Bible&p=55503#post55503) thread:


Not all theories are testable. How do you test a theory that a stars form. Two hydrogen atoms do not come together by gravitational force. We are told the interstellar gas cloud has a density less than that of a vacuum chamber and yet hydrogen atoms (or any other atoms) come together by gravity. Prove it! What can you prove evolved?


David's assertion that hydrogen atoms do not come together by gravitational force revealed his utter ignorance of basic science. So I explained it to him in this post from June 8, 2013 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3767-Test-Everything-in-the-Bible&p=55524#post55524):


Hey there David,

I commend your desire for evidence, but I am mystified by what appears to be a double standard. The Bible would not stand if you held it up to the same standards.

Also, you seem to be confused about the universal law of gravitation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation). It is called "universal" because any two objects with mass will attract each other according to the following formula:

1239

If you DO THE MATH with interstellar gas clouds you will find that they will collapse under certain conditions. You would know this if you understood the physics underlying the virial theorem and thermodynamics. Here's a brief explanation from the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation):
An interstellar cloud of gas will remain in hydrostatic equilibrium as long as the kinetic energy of the gas pressure is in balance with the potential energy of the internal gravitational force. Mathematically this is expressed using the virial theorem, which states that, to maintain equilibrium, the gravitational potential energy must equal twice the internal thermal energy.[14] If a cloud is massive enough that the gas pressure is insufficient to support it, the cloud will undergo gravitational collapse. The mass above which a cloud will undergo such collapse is called the Jeans mass. The Jeans mass depends on the temperature and density of the cloud, but is typically thousands to tens of thousands of solar masses.[2] This coincides with the typical mass of an open cluster of stars, which is the end product of a collapsing cloud.[15]
This is what constantly blows my mind. You reject science on the pretext of a "lack of proof" (which is not actually missing at all) even as you blindly accept an ancient pre-scientific religious text that is filled with mythologies, superstitious, and errors. I just don't get it. The whole point of science is PROOF whereas the foundation of religion is blind FAITH. It makes no sense for you to challenge science since it has ten trillion times as much evidence supporting it compared with the Bible.


David's answer in post #39 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3767-Test-Everything-in-the-Bible&p=55544#post55544) indicated that he had ZERO understanding of the physics that I had just explained to him. So responded by telling him that "The answer is found in the virial theorem as I explained. But you don't understand the virial theorem, do you? Or what, are you saying it is wrong? If so, then please explain which of the mathematical equations you disagree with." David answered (with much confusion about basic concepts) in post #68 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3767-Test-Everything-in-the-Bible&p=55595#post55595). I explained and corrected his errors in post #73 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3767-Test-Everything-in-the-Bible&p=55607#post55607). Here is the post. It contains scientific explanations of all his questions. He never responded. He dropped the conversation. So are you now going to insinuate that he did this because he knew he could not answer? Of course not. That would require you to be just and true, something your religion apparently prohibits.





OK Richard. I will play along with this and ask some questions and see where we get. Incidentally, your picture and formula looks a lot simpler than the mass of equations I found in Wikipedia for this subject.

Yes, the picture and formula I gave was a little simpler because it represents only the force between only two particles. When dealing with an interstellar gas cloud there are many more particles and so we must use statistical methods which yield the laws of thermodynamics. That's what the virial theorem is all about. But this doesn't really complicate things that much. Here's the equation:

1240

The average kinetic energy, which relates to the temperature, is given by <T> and Fk is just the force on the kth particle given by the first equation I wrote. I don't see why you think it is so complicated. It's really very simple.



We have to assume "under certain conditions".
How do you know those conditions are reached? What you can say is; "a star is formed and that proves the theorem", but then that is a circular argument, for that is what this theorem is out to prove without proving the initial conditions are reached.

There is nothing circular. The theorem simply states what will happen if the gas cloud has sufficient mass. It's no different than any other law of nature. E.g. if the temperature is hot enough paper will catch fire. You appear to be implying that interstellar gas clouds could never reach sufficient mass - known as Jeans mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_mass) - to meet the criteria. If that's your point, then you need to do more research. Gas clouds greater than Jeans mass have been observed.



That aside for the moment.
What is the density of this gas cloud? We are told that the mass of the cloud has to be "many solar masses" and had to have a critical mass before it can happen. I found a quote that said; "the density of the interstella medium is less than that of a vacuum". I cannot find the exact quote again, but this one will do from Wikipedia.


In all phases, the interstellar medium is extremely dilute by terrestrial standards. In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 106 molecules per cm3.

Are molecules acting as a gas and colliding and bouncing off each other? The answer is probably no. Under collapsing conditions, the atoms must be sticking together.

You are confusing mass with density which is mass/volume. So it doesn't matter how dilute the cloud is. And the atoms do not "stick together" - they are bound by potential energy (gravity) but still moving like a gas. You simply do not understand basic physics. And that's what's so crazy about your attack on physics. You are tilting at windmills. How can you feel competent to challenge things that you don't even understand? First you must take the time and effort to understand, then if you see an error you will have something to challenge. But as it is, you are challenging things like 1 + 2 = 3, and insisting that it really equals 17.37433. It's just nuts.



Let's take your model of two hydrogen atoms (and only two) and ask some fundamental questions.
What is the greatest distance apart atoms of hydrogen must be before gravitational force between them begins to attract them? The answer is probably infinite. The inverse square law would make the gravitational force between them infinitely small.

As two molecules are attracted to each other by gravity, they will accelerate towards each other. If approaching from and infinite distance apart, will this speed accelerate to the point that will cause the two atoms to fuse together on impact and release energy or bounce off each other?

As the two atoms accelerate towards each other, so the kinetic energy must increase. What was the original potential energy when the two atoms were at an infinite distance apart? As kinetic energy increases, the potential energy must decrease, but what was the potential to begin with? Does being infinitely apart give the two atoms infinite potential energy?

Again, your question indicates a fundamental ignorance of basic physics. Gravitational potential energy is negative. It grows as the distance increases. Two atoms separated by infinity have ZERO gravitational potential energy.

I think it is great that you are asking these questions. It would be great if you were actually interested in learning physics. But we both know that's not why you are challenging physics. You are looking for a "gap" where your God can find some relevance. Good luck with that.



Do these atoms have thermal energy?

No, because temperature is based on the average kinetic energy of a large number of particles. It makes no sense when speaking of only two particles. Again, this is basic physics. How is it possible that you could feel competent to challenge things of which you know nothing, all because reality contradicts that Bible?



Once I have your explanation of these things, maybe I can begin to appreciate how gas clouds collapse.

Why don't you just accept the established science? It is not controversial in the least. I see you gleefully accepting all sorts of fringe claims that have no evidence at all merely because they match your prejudices. This is another example of the double standard that seems to have corrupted all your judgments. This is why we can never find any point of agreement. You cannot agree with anything in reality because reality is contrary to everything you believe. Please take no offense. I've been trying to talk to you about these things for well over a year and it seems that you are falling ever deeper into a sort of abyss where we can't agree that 1 + 2 = 3. Can't you see how nutty this is? If I know anything, I know that I am being very rational with you, yet you are refusing to agree. I find that very disturbing. But I'm glad you are still participating. I just wish you would choose to find a FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT IN REALITY so we have some place to start. We need to agree on something or we will never be able to agree about anything. That "something" should be common reality that is established by EVIDENCE. It shouldn't be so hard.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-18-2014, 08:50 PM
John,

I don't understand your anti science stance. It makes no sense. You could easily educate yourself, but you choose not to. Why?

And why do you think you are qualified to so easily dismiss the evidence from decades of research? Because the Bible shackles your mentality to the primitive age of ignorant people who knew nothing of science.

Also, if God is the creator of human intelligence, then he created humans with the ability to apply logic to something being factual or not. What kind of sense does it make for the writings of the Bible to defy logic from the established facts science has discovered? No flood, flat earth, firmament, Exodus, Adam and eve, etc...

Don't you think an all knowing God is infinitely superior to the mindless crap the Bible reduces him to? The Bible portrays God as grossly incompetent. He couldn't even inspire the writers to ACCURATELY portray how the world works. Instead, he allows the writers to describe the earth in a way that totally defies any logic. Especially given that we know the descriptions in the Bible are patently FALSE.

You asked about star formation. Here you go. Courtesy of Nasa with pictures and all. http://phys.org/news/2013-04-sofia-reveal-massive-star-formation.html

And here is another one. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/04/extreme-galaxy-observed-forming-stars-100-times-rate-of-milky-way.html
Hey there L67,

Excellent post. The sad fact is that neither jce nor David have any interest in learning about star formation at all. They are not astrophysicists and they don't even understand when it is explained on an elementary level. As everyone can see, they have one motive: they are desperate to justify their rejection of science in favor of ignorant crap scribbled by scientifically illiterate goat-herders because they have been brainwashed by their religion. This is why I say that fundamentalist religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. The irony is palpable - their primary claim is that their religion teaches them truth when in fact it breeds a contempt for it!

Richard

jce
08-20-2014, 05:41 AM
Now if you really were interested in star formation, the internet is overflowing with knowledge. There is no excuse your for ignorance. Here is something I found in a few seconds:

Star Formation in the Galaxy, An Observational Overview (http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~reipurth/reviews/lada_yukawa.pdf)
Charles J. Lada
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA USA 02138

The problems of star and planet formation are among the most important challenges
facing modern astrophysical research. Stars and their accompanying planetary systems are
continuously being formed in the Galaxy enabling direct observation and investigation of
the star forming process. However, stars form invisibly deep within cold and dark molecular
clouds. Observations of these stellar birth sites at infrared and millimeter wavelengths from
space and the ground have resulted in considerable progress toward a physical understanding
of stellar origins. In this contribution I will review the empirical basis for our current
understanding of the process of star formation with an emphasis on the origin of low mass
(sunlike) stars.

Richard

To use your words "Is there anything praiseworthy in that post?" Yes, I think so. I conducted a "quote mining" expedition into this 20 page paper that you represented as answering the question about star formation and below is what I found.

First a word about quote mining. When one prospects for something of value, such as gold or silver, he must sort through mountains of lesser worth material (or worth-less) in search of something of value. In this example, I was able to uncover some "Nuggets of Truth".

To convince someone that something is true ("there's gold in them thar hills"), it is necessary to include some truth (gold). It's like fishing, just use something the fish values (bait) to conceal the hook (lie). The whole thing is simply a misrepresentation to the fish.

The introduction misleadingly titled "Star Formation in the Galaxy, An Observational Overview" drops some bait into the water.


Star Formation in the Galaxy, An Observational Overview

1. Introduction

Stars are the fundamental objects of the Cosmos. They are the homes of planetary systems and they provide the energy necessary for the development and main- tenance of life. The evolution of stars drives the evolution of all stellar systems in- cluding clusters and galaxies. Stellar Evolution also controls the chemical evolution of the universe.

Despite its spectacular success in explaining the life histories and deaths of stars, the theory of stellar evolution is incomplete in a very fundamental aspect. It is not able to account for the origin of stars. Knowledge of the physical mechanism for the formation of stars is essential for understanding the evolution of the galaxies and the universe from the earliest times after the big bang to the current epoch of cosmic history. Development of a theory of star formation is also crucial for understanding the origin of planetary systems which, in turn, is important for evaluating the possibility of biology beyond the solar system.

In essence, understanding star formation is the key to understanding time, space, matter and life.


The inability of the theory of stellar evolution to explain star formation likely points to the inherent complexity of the physical process itself. Consequently construction of a theory of star formation must require a strong foundation of empirical data or observation. The empirical study of star formation is greatly facilitated by a fundamental property of the universe. Namely that star formation has been a continuous and ongoing process which in our galaxy extends into the present epoch. Consequently, the physical process of star formation can be investigated by direct observation.

The concluding remarks speak for themselves.


6. Concluding Remarks and Future Prospects

The story of stellar origins described in the previous section represents the current paradigm for star formation research. However, it is only a small part of the whole story. For example, a major deficiency with the current theoretical paradigm is that it cannot yet predict the form of the IMF.

Another issue to be considered is that most stars form in clusters and the physical process of star formation in the clustered environment is not yet understood.

In addition, the current paradigm has not been extended to massive stars which begin their post-protostellar evolution as hydrogen burning objects and never experience a pre-main sequence phase of post-protostellar evolution. The details of the formation of such massive stars are much less known.

Developing a theoretical picture of massive star formation and star formation in the clustered environment are two of the most important challenges facing modern star formation research.

Another outstanding problem that deserves attention is the formation and early evolution of GMCs and the dense cores within them. It is clear that the mechanism responsible for creating the mass spectrum of dense cores and, in particular, the most massive dense cores, is ultimately responsible for the fact that most stars form in embedded clusters. Solving the problem of embedded cluster formation requires solving the problem of dense core formation. Yet our understanding of cloud and core formation is meager.

Understanding these issues presents another important challenge for star formation studies. What are the critical observations that will reveal how clouds are formed and how dense cores evolve to become star forming factories?

It is not clear that new capabilities or technological developments will help answer this question.

Our ability to detect and measure the gaseous component of molecular clouds has existed for more than thirty years, yet little progress has been made in determining even such basic facts as the ages of molecular clouds.

Here the challenge will be to devise new ways of thinking about the problem….

Conclusion, one must find "new ways of thinking". Translation... what we know and how we think about it is insufficient.

Based on the author's concluding remarks in this paper, there is no "proof" that new stars are being formed in the universe. Instead, what is observed is entropy at work. The universe is winding down. What was once, in the beginning, a very well ordered and perfect system is in the process succumbing to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Degeneration. The empirical evidence from observation is that stars burn out.

If one chooses to believe that new stars are being formed, then one must accept that stars form themselves. If true, then it logically follows that the first star formed itself. Following that trail to the beginning leads to one inevitable conclusion. This is why those with PHd's in Astrophysics, who choose to omit God from the equation are working on this idea:


"It is tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing"
Allen H. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt


"... our universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum or state of nothingness:
Edward Tryon


'This "quantum cosmology" provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing without violating any laws of physics". Paul Davies

Richard, if you chose to buy into the idea that stars create themselves and that the first star created itself, then have at it. But know this, there are only two possibilities... something from nothing or Creation by Design". Choose wisely..

Cheers!:anim_32:

John

L67
08-20-2014, 04:59 PM
Richard

To use your words "Is there anything praiseworthy in that post?" Yes, I think so. I conducted a "quote mining" expedition into this 20 page paper that you represented as answering the question about star formation and below is what I found.

First a word about quote mining. When one prospects for something of value, such as gold or silver, he must sort through mountains of lesser worth material (or worth-less) in search of something of value. In this example, I was able to uncover some "Nuggets of Truth".

To convince someone that something is true ("there's gold in them thar hills"), it is necessary to include some truth (gold). It's like fishing, just use something the fish values (bait) to conceal the hook (lie). The whole thing is simply a misrepresentation to the fish.

The introduction misleadingly titled "Star Formation in the Galaxy, An Observational Overview" drops some bait into the water.


John,

You have just revealed your utter contempt for anything concerning truth. In your pathetic attempt to discredit this paper by quote mining(as do all deceitful Christians),you missed one MAJOR part of the introduction.

For much of the last 50 years direct observation of the star formation process and the development of a theory to explain it, have been severely hampered by the fact that most stars form in dark clouds and during their formative stages are invisible optically. FFortunately, advances in observational technology over the last quarter century opened the infrared and millimeter-wave windows to astronomical investigation and enabled direct observations of star forming regions and this has signiØcantly expanded our knowledge of the star formation process. As a result the foundations for a coherent theory of star formation
and early evolution are being laid


Now, you balked at the ideas of star formations being observed. This paper PROVES that as does the link I gave you courtesy of Nasa. http://phys.org/news/2013-04-sofia-reveal-massive-star-formation.html

Your attempt to drive a wedge into someones credible work by quote mining tid bits is down right insane. You should be ashamed of yourself. And you call yourself a follower of Jesus(truth)? You are the enemy of truth.






The concluding remarks speak for themselves.

Yes, they do to anyone with a functioning brain that cares about the truth.




Conclusion, one must find "new ways of thinking". Translation... what we know and how we think about it is insufficient.

Based on the author's concluding remarks in this paper, there is no "proof" that new stars are being formed in the universe. Instead, what is observed is entropy at work. The universe is winding down. What was once, in the beginning, a very well ordered and perfect system is in the process succumbing to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Degeneration. The empirical evidence from observation is that stars burn out.

Nonsense! You have no idea what you are talking about. Star formations have been formed and observed. http://phys.org/news/2013-04-sofia-reveal-massive-star-formation.html



If one chooses to believe that new stars are being formed, then one must accept that stars form themselves. If true, then it logically follows that the first star formed itself. Following that trail to the beginning leads to one inevitable conclusion. This is why those with PHd's in Astrophysics, who choose to omit God from the equation are working on this idea:

Nobody chooses to omit God from the equation. How do you test the supernatural? You can't. What is wrong with your brain? Your suggestion is the Bible says this therefore we need not explore any further. Just plain silly.

I also can't believe you posted those same quotes out of context yet again. As if you think those quotes somehow discredit legitimate science. You haven't shown why any of those quotes are wrong. You copied those quotes from some other brain dead creationist who quote mined the sources. It's painfully obvious you don't know anything about legit science and absolutely refuse to educate yourself. Nothing could be more pathetic.

Let me put those quotes in context John. Go ahead refute them please.

From 1984: http://books.google.com/books?id=1BB8qlv9S0AC&pg=PA397&lpg=PA397&dq=It+is+tempting+to+go+one+step+further+and+specu late+that+the+entire+universe+evolved+from+literal ly+nothing%22&source=bl&ots=6U_wnjPjGX&sig=ObZss13VJw_qVpgY-USSZAcsFfw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MhbiU9z5BsGMyATa-4D4Cg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20tempting%20to%20go%20one%20step%20furt her%20and%20speculate%20that%20the%20entire%20univ erse%20evolved%20from%20literally%20nothing%22&f=false

Let's quote the whole thing. The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing


This was the only quote I could find but it makes sense given the text of the out of quote one.

How did nothing become something and then explode?
Paul Davies’ answer is that it happened through quantum physics applied to cosmology. He says, ‘This “quantum cosmology” provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing, without violating any laws of physics.’18


http://books.google.com/books?id=qcAt-iSl2q0C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=our+universe+had+its+physical+origin+as+a+quant um+fluctuation+of+some+pre-existing+true+vacuum+or+state+of+nothingness%22&source=bl&ots=Vf_irDjiER&sig=IW2xpI4TSfo73RFfOKw3ddK_It4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ah3iU86bC9ejyASo0YKwAw&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=our%20universe%20had%20its%20physical%20origin%2 0as%20a%20quantum%20fluctuation%20of%20some%20pre-existing%20true%20vacuum%20or%20state%20of%20nothi ngness%22&f=false


In normal circumstances, such pairs vanish after an exceedingly brief time: there persistence would violate energy conservation(which hols up over macroscopic times in quantum theory, but may be violated for microscopic durations because of a time-energy uncertainty relation). But if there were a spontaneous quantum fluctuation yielding a system with zero net energy, that system could persist forever. In principle, there is no limit to how large such a fluctuation could be. So I conjectured that our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre- existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness. Thus stood matters when my proposal of creation ex nihilo was published in Nature December 1973



Richard, if you chose to buy into the idea that stars create themselves and that the first star created itself, then have at it. But know this, there are only two possibilities... something from nothing or Creation by Design". Choose wisely..

No, it's NOT creation by design. You believe that God created something from nothing. The only difference is that you assert God did it with no evidence. That doesn't advance the argument.

I want to thank you for revealing your utter contempt for the truth. Pat yourself on the back because you should be very proud of your quote mining.

jce
08-20-2014, 11:13 PM
John,

You have just revealed your utter contempt for anything concerning truth. In your pathetic attempt to discredit this paper by quote mining(as do all deceitful Christians),you missed one MAJOR part of the introduction.

For much of the last 50 years direct observation of the star formation process and the development of a theory to explain it, have been severely hampered by the fact that most stars form in dark clouds and during their formative stages are invisible optically. FFortunately, advances in observational technology over the last quarter century opened the infrared and millimeter-wave windows to astronomical investigation and enabled direct observations of star forming regions and this has signiØcantly expanded our knowledge of the star formation process. As a result the foundations for a coherent theory of star formation
and early evolution are being laid

L67

Did you note that the quote you posted implies that the foundation is not yet even laid regarding star formation? That any theory regarding star formation is currently "incoherent? In other words, there is no formula, nor foundation in science for star formation. The author concedes in his conclusion that before we can even begin the process, "new ways of thinking" will be required. What does such a statement suggest to you?

So, this is the current state of scientific knowledge on this topic and L67 has decided to proclaim otherwise and dive right in before there's any water in the pool. Why is L67 so eager to go "all in" on a hand in which the cards are yet to be dealt? An idea that doesn't even have a footing, and likely won't in L67's lifetime? Is it "by faith"?

Also, I did nothing but recite what the author of the article admitted in his own integrity, He proposed a number of possibilities in an effort to explain what he believes, that stars are forming to create new stars. If you have an axe to grind, it is with the author who is perhaps more knowledgeable and qualified to write or speak on the subject than you are.

Do you have a PHd in astrophysics? Can you explain how a star forms? Can you explain any of the problems associated with the Nebular Hypothesis? Can you state what is observed within the dark gaseous clouds in space, millions of light years from Earth?

If not, why do you believe that new stars are forming? Because you reject the Bible and prefer an alternative explanation as told by people you don't even know? Is that your definition of wisdom?

The paper speaks for itself, don't get mad at me. Study the topic.



Genesis states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. He claims responsibility for the manifestation of the universe. I can accept that and I can accept that God is not limited to the natural laws that restrict us. Jesus made that point unambiguously when He demonstrated His supernatural ability in transforming matter, healing infirmities, reshaping deformities and by resurrecting dead people, including Himself. If you believe that Jesus did these things, then why not simply accept that He made the stars also. If you don't believe Jesus, then you have greater problems to explain than arguing about star formation.

"He created them and named them" and it's also worthy to note that not one of them is missing. "Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing".

Trying to explain creation in purely natural terms, while simultaneously omitting God from the process is an arrogant assumption, especially in light of His instruction to us.... "to look up to the heavens and acknowledge Who created all these things".

I accept the Genesis account of His Creation. He states the stars are his handiwork, not the result of natural processes. He would know. He was there.

Peace.

John

Edit note. To simply close the quote box of L67 by adding the "[/quote]"

jce
08-20-2014, 11:32 PM
I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics and understand the information that I post.

Okay Richard, since you have the superior education, take your place in the "on deck" circle following L67's turn at bat and prepare your presentation of a coherent theory on star formation.

John

David M
08-21-2014, 01:20 AM
Hello David

I see you started this thread over a year ago and found no takers. Why am I not surprised! I have a reply to Richard's star formation reference link. I was going to start a new thread on "Star Formation" but I think your topic title will do just fine.

I wonder why Mr. McGough avoided your question from December 2012?
Perhaps he's still thinking it through or maybe was unable to find a satisfactory google result.:lol:

Either way, he has finally come up with something that is worth exposing... er, I mean exploring.

I'll move that topic of the conversation with Richard on star formation over here, and if we can keep it on topic, I suspect the thread won't last long for lack of scientific explanation.

John
Hello John
Thank you for continuing with this subject. I have read the responses from Richard and L67 and they are continuing in their usual style of attack, which I am so tired of, I do not feel like continuing, even though I have not quit as Richard likes to suggest and I have much to put to Richard (or L67) for them to answer. The evidence they are submitting is not substantive enough.
With so many points at variance, it is difficult to know where to begin. One fact at a time has to be dealt with.

It is fact that the science we are dealing with is called 'Theoretical Physics'. As such, the theory cannot be proved by experiment. The things being discussed cannot be proven in the laboratory under experimental conditions. The science is highly dependent upon mathematics to model what is happening. "How good is the model?" we might ask. On Richard's side, the model is accepted, whilst on the opposite side, we question the validity of the model. For the model to even stand a chance of being shown correct, it has to be assumed that initial conditions could be established.

In the last article L67 gave you the link to, many questions arise. They talk about a "massive" star. Why is not information shown about a 'normal' sized star forming. What establishes the difference? In fact, they estimate the size of G35 to be 8x the size of our sun. That is not massive compared to VY Canis Majoris which is said to have 30 solar masses, yet its radii is 1,800 to 2,100 solar radii. Here is what Wikipedia gives on the subject;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris


Controversy

VY Canis Majoris ejects huge amounts of gas during its outbursts.[20]

There have been conflicting opinions of the properties of VY CMa. In one view,[17] the star is a very large and very luminous red hypergiant. The various larger estimates of the size and luminosity fall outside the bounds of current stellar theory, both beyond the maximum predicted size of any star and far cooler than a star of its luminosity can become. In another opinion (such as Massey, Levesque, and Plez's study),[10] the star is a normal red supergiant, with a radius around 600 solar radii and falling comfortably inside models of stellar structure and evolution. More recent papers[7][8] produce intermediate values for radius and luminosity, falling at the very extreme for the expected size and luminosity of red supergiants (or hypergiant based on its emission spectrum and high mass loss rate).

VY Canis Majoris also illustrates the conceptual problem of defining the "surface" (and radius) of very large stars. With an average density of 0.000005 to 0.000010 kg/m3, the star is a hundred thousand times less dense than the atmosphere of the Earth (air) at sea level. It is also undergoing strong mass loss with the outer layers of the star no longer gravitationally bound. The definition of the boundary of such stars is based on the Rosseland Radius, the location at which the optical depth is one (or sometimes a different value such as 2/3).[21] In cases such as VY CMa, the radius may be defined on a different opacity value or on an opacity at a particular wavelength.[8]

On the opposite end of the scale, we have brown dwarfs or red dwarfs that are the smallest stars. Here is what is said about brown dwarfs;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_least_massive_stars
Although brown dwarfs lack sufficient mass to ignite core hydrogen fusion (75–87 Jupiter masses, depending on metallicity), the smallest true stars (red dwarfs) can have such cool atmospheric temperatures (below 4,000 K), that it is difficult to distinguish them from brown dwarfs.

The gas helium contains two hydrogen atoms so the same can be said of hydrogen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium
In the Earth's atmosphere, the concentration of helium by volume is only 5.2 parts per million.[69][70] The concentration is low and fairly constant despite the continuous production of new helium because most helium in the Earth's atmosphere escapes into space by several processes. Helium (and Hydrogen) are escaping the gravitational pull of the earth. That begs the question how hydrogen gas was compressed under gravity in the first place. I know we have the mathematical equations as Richard has presented in the mathematical equation he cited, but this goes against what is found in practice. OK, so let's say we have a mass of hydrogen gas produced by some means. That gas has to have the correct initial conditions for gravity to take effect and attract the hydrogen atoms in the way that meets the mathematical equation. That is one perspective of how hydrogen came to accumulate at the core of a star. The other perspective is that there is an outside force (unknown to science, but known as God) compressing the hydrogen gas together. With an outside force compressing the gas together, it would be impossible for any hydrogen to escape. The problem with the natural model (as I see it) is that hydrogen will escape and not come together because it was always escaping from the moment of the Big Bang.

Once again the article cited by L67 is still speculative. Words used in the article like; "suggest", means that evidence is not conclusive. A new fact could come along that would suggest something else. The images shown at the bottom of the article are computer models. Computer models are man-made as a result of man's programming. A tweak of the program here and there could cause a different image to be produced. The science is still being worked on.

L67 talks about the last 50 years, yet the information in the images produced from the different wavelengths detected were taken in 2011. In one snapshot in time, we are do deduce what took millions of years to form a star and is still taking millions of years to observe. For a start L67 and Richard should explain to me what the different wavelengths are meant to represent. Here is a reply to why stars take so long to form as confirmation of the length of time;

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/stars.html
How long does it take to produce a star? Why does it take that long?
To make a star like the Sun, the process takes some tens of millions of years. As to why, that's actually a very complex question. When the gas sphere that will become a Sun first condenses out of the interstellar gas cloud, the sphere is quite large in radius (compared to the Sun). It must shrink in size, squashing itself under its own gravity until, because of the pressure of the squashing, the central temperature reaches 10 million degrees Kelvin and fusion starts (it becomes a Sun). The shrinking is only possible since the sphere is losing energy from its surface (light is escaping), and so the material is settling down under gravity. Once the central temperature rises to 10 million Kelvin, fusion starts, energy is released by the fusion, replacing the lost energy from the surface, and the sphere stops contracting --- it is now a star like the Sun. The process of losing energy, and shrinking, while the central temperature rises as the pressure builds, all takes 10 million years or more. Why so long? Well, it' a combination of two things. First, such a large amount of gas (as is contained in the star) must lose a large amount of energy (by light lost from the surface) before it can settle down to the radius of the Sun. Second, it is losing that energy at a specific rate dictated by the way energy is transported up the surface from the interior. Both of these facts determine how long the entire shrinking process will take place. As I said, it is complex, but one can perhaps think of it as taking a long time because there is so much work (energy loss) that a gas sphere must do to shrink to the size of the Sun.

As for condensing hydrogen gas to form stars, Richard has given another mathematical equation to explain what is happening, but can that be shown to be true in practice? I began this thread with saying, "I am grappling to understand this". Richard and L67 should not hide behind the articles they present, but should be able to answer the questions that those articles raise.

Could the initial conditions ever come about naturally? The same question comes into play as with other aspects of evolution. Evolution is started from the first cell, but in my book, Evolution has to start with the first atom before the first star. How did these things come into existence? I do not believe they came from nothing, but accepting the relativistic relation between mass and energy as expressed by Einstein's equation, the universe came from pure energy, which I associate with God. God and his energy/power has always existed from infinity and will do so for infinity. That is the only answer anyone can give, otherwise "where did God come from?". These concepts are difficult to get our head around. How mass forms from energy is a BIG MYSTERY.

Once it is accepted there is a power greater than anything known, that has the power to make the first atom, then anything is possible. To explain the operation of God by taking God away, is what the Evolutionists are trying to explain. Something exists, therefore there has to be an explanation for its existence. Science has to find an explanation that does not include God. Science has reached the limits of measurement and there is very little else to be found out. Science is coming up against barriers that to some, it is wishful thinking the barriers can be got over . Others are resigned to the fact that the limit is reached and there are still more questions than answers.

In conclusion, I see a resemblance between science with all its suggestions and theories masquerading as truth, to be summed up in the tone of language found in Isaiah 28; 13-15
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

For the word "lies" in verse 15 read; "not the truth", or "suggestions and theories".

All the best
David

L67
08-21-2014, 07:09 AM
L67

Did you note that the quote you posted implies that the foundation is not yet even laid regarding star formation? That any theory regarding star formation is currently "incoherent? In other words, there is no formula, nor foundation in science for star formation. The author concedes in his conclusion that before we can even begin the process, "new ways of thinking" will be required. What does such a statement suggest to you?


So, this is the current state of scientific knowledge on this topic and L67 has decided to proclaim otherwise and dive right in before there's any water in the pool. Why is L67 so eager to go "all in" on a hand in which the cards are yet to be dealt? An idea that doesn't even have a footing, and likely won't in L67's lifetime? Is it "by faith"?

Yes, I did. But that doesn't change the FACT that star formation has been observed. Did you also NOTE that the paper was from 2005? Do you think maybe science has advanced in the nine years since that paper? Your willingness say this is the current state of scientific knowledge is misinformed. You never bothered to educate yourself on the issues.

Your suggestion that I simply have "faith" in science is pathetic. That is what YOU do. You claimed no star formation has been observed.

In fact, you made this wildly big boast. Thou doest boast much about knowing nothing. Since observation seems to be the key, what is the observational evidence on star formation?
Here's some space to write your answer: "___".

I as well as Richard have given you this evidence and all you can do ignore it. Instead, you choose to exalt yourself above the brightest scientist and proclaim your ignorance as fact.

Here is yet more evidence that has been discovered 8-20-14. http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/08/a-spectacular-landscape-of-star-formation


Also, I did nothing but recite what the author of the article admitted in his own integrity, He proposed a number of possibilities in an effort to explain what he believes, that stars are forming to create new stars. If you have an axe to grind, it is with the author who is perhaps more knowledgeable and qualified to write or speak on the subject than you are.

No, you quote mined the author out of context. You didn't read the whole paper. You don't care enough to read it. That much is obvious. You basically looked for bits that you think create doubt about the observation of star formation. Nothing could be more obvious what you did.


Do you have a PHd in astrophysics? Can you explain how a star forms? Can you explain any of the problems associated with the Nebular Hypothesis? Can you state what is observed within the dark gaseous clouds in space, millions of light years from Earth?

Why are you going this route? It's obvious you don't understand any of the science you reject, yet you feel qualified enough to reject it all. You aren't interested in anything I have to say and you know it. If you really cared at all , then you would educate yourself. And then we could discuss the merits of the papers.


If not, why do you believe that new stars are forming? Because you reject the Bible and prefer an alternative explanation as told by people you don't even know? Is that your definition of wisdom?

Because I understand a lot of the science behind it. Now, don't get me wrong. There is a lot I still don't know, but that doesn't mean what I do know is irrelevant.

That's not why I believe in science. I believe in science because they have PROVEN themselves trustworthy. Everything around us is a result of science.


The paper speaks for itself, don't get mad at me. Study the topic.

I know the paper speaks for itself. DUH! I'm simply pointing out your grossly deceitful behavior. And yes quote mining is deceitful. That is what people looking to misinform do. This speaks to your character John. It is your responsibility to maintain your own character.



Genesis states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. He claims responsibility for the manifestation of the universe. I can accept that and I can accept that God is not limited to the natural laws that restrict us. Jesus made that point unambiguously when He demonstrated His supernatural ability in transforming matter, healing infirmities, reshaping deformities and by resurrecting dead people, including Himself. If you believe that Jesus did these things, then why not simply accept that He made the stars also. If you don't believe Jesus, then you have greater problems to explain than arguing about star formation.

And there it is. That is all you have regarding the Bible. CLAIMS! The Bible CLAIMS miraculous things about Jesus. Have you ever witnessed any of these events? No! So why do you believe it? Is that your definition of wisdom? Believing something with no evidence? Your gross double standard is plain for all to see. You reject science because it contradicts what you want to believe and you believe the Bible on faith.

Let's face it, you don't have any concrete proof or the debate about the existence of God would have been over long ago.


"He created them and named them" and it's also worthy to note that not one of them is missing. "Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing".

How do you know not one of them is missing? Have you ever witnessed this? I would say no.


Trying to explain creation in purely natural terms, while simultaneously omitting God from the process is an arrogant assumption, especially in light of His instruction to us.... "to look up to the heavens and acknowledge Who created all these things".

It's not an arrogant assumption John. I asked you earlier and you avoided the question. How do you test the supernatural? How is science suppose to explain the untestable?


I accept the Genesis account of His Creation. He states the stars are his handiwork, not the result of natural processes. He would know. He was there.

He was there? How do you know this? You know this by CLAIMS made by the Bible. Your beliefs aren't based on any concrete evidence. That is why you are anti science. Science is destroying the myths of the Bible one by one. Add many have already been debunked.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-21-2014, 10:46 AM
Okay Richard, since you have the superior education, take your place in the "on deck" circle following L67's turn at bat and prepare your presentation of a coherent theory on star formation.

John
Hey there John,

Let's review the conversation. Why are we even talking about something as complex as star formation? This particular leg of our conversation began with my response to your thread Thorns and Fangs.

Richard: Do you think God designed those thorns and fangs after the fall or were the part of the original creation?

John: Is there anything in creation that did not have it's origin from an intelligence source?

Richard: Nobody knows anything about the ultimate origin of everything. But there are many things we do know about the world that can be confirmed by observation. There is nothing - not one observable phenomenon - that requires any god or supernatural designer to explain.

John: Thou doest boast much about knowing nothing. Since observation seems to be the key, what is the observational evidence on star formation?
Here's some space to write your answer: "___".

Richard: Your comment makes no sense. If we had no "observational evidence on star formation" then it would not be relevant to my assertion that there is "not one observable phenomenon that requires any god or supernatural designer to explain." It appears you know my statement is true and are simply trying to dodge that truth.

That post included citations from a scientific paper that states: "Stars and their accompanying planetary systems are continuously being formed in the Galaxy enabling direct observation and investigation of the star forming process."

You totally ignored the evidence and chose rather to make snide and snarky remarks at me. I answered with a thorough review of our conversation (since context is everything) in post #23 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6027-Thorns-amp-Fangs&p=65846#post65846) of the Thorns and Fangs thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6027-Thorns-amp-Fangs) but you never replied.

You then found an old post by David concerning the extremely advanced science of astrophysics (of which you have no understanding, just like the evolutionary science you ignorantly reject) and made snarky insinuations that I had deliberately avoided answering it because I was "unable to find a satisfactory google result." So I explained (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3491-The-First-Simplest-Star&p=65935#post65935) to you that I had answered David's questions in another thread and showed that he failed to understand the most basic elements of science, let alone the advanced points of astrophysics, and that he is the one who dropped the conversation, not I. You never answered that post! Just like David, you ignored all the scientific explanations I provided in that post.

And this brings us back to this thread where you responded to my presentation of the evidence that "Stars and their accompanying planetary systems are continuously being formed in the Galaxy enabling direct observation and investigation of the star forming process." Your response was literally incoherent because you directly contradict yourself. You cited the same paper I cited, including the observed fact of star formation, but then directly contradicted that claim! Here is what you wrote:

John: Based on the author's concluding remarks in this paper, there is no "proof" that new stars are being formed in the universe.

There was NOTHING in that paper that supports your assertion. The concluding remarks related to the theories of the precise details of the physics of how stars are formed. There was not a single word written that would suggest that stars are not currently being formed. That would make the paper absurd since it opens with the statement that the formation of stars is a fact based on observation.

And this brings us to the ultimate absurdity of the twisted path you created to defend your "Bible truth." The statement you were trying to refute was "There is nothing - not one observable phenomenon - that requires any god or supernatural designer to explain." So you brought up star formation. But you say that star formation is not observed. Therefore, if you are correct, then star formation has nothing to do with my statement that there is no "observable phenomenon" that requires a god for an explanation. Your response is totally incoherent.

And of course there is a double absurdity, since your answer directly contradicts the entire body of astrophysics which says star formation is a phenomenon that we have observed.

You might want to reflect on the reasons why it requires such devious, diversionary, and blatantly incoherent tactics to defend the "truth" of the Bible. You simply cannot or will not answer a direct question or follow simple logic.

My statement stands. You have not presented any evidence of any observable phenomenon that requires God as an explanation.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-21-2014, 01:14 PM
Hello John
Thank you for continuing with this subject. I have read the responses from Richard and L67 and they are continuing in their usual style of attack, which I am so tired of, I do not feel like continuing, even though I have not quit as Richard likes to suggest and I have much to put to Richard (or L67) for them to answer. The evidence they are submitting is not substantive enough.

Hey there David,

There you go again, falsely accusing L67 and me of "attacking" when we are in fact simply speaking truth that is being rejected without any reason other than blind religious dogma. I get very tired of your continual false accusations. Case in point: you quit the conversation about star formation after I had given series of extensive scientific explanations that you evidently did not understand. The proof is there for all to see in post #4 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3491-The-First-Simplest-Star&p=65935#post65935) of this thread. John had rudely attacked me, insinuating that I had not answered because I was "unable to find a satisfactory google result." And then you pervert reality and say that I am the one attacking? How freaking typical of blind believers committed to immorality. They mindlessly reject science that they don't understand and attack people who point out their ignorance by falsely accusing us of being the attackers. As I've explained to you many times over the past few years, if you want these kinds of accusations to stop, then you need to stop making them!

You say that the evidence is not "substantive enough"? You blindly accept anything you think the Bible says without any evidence at all, and reject the ten thousand confirmed scientific results that you don't even understand. How is it possible you can't see the absurdity of your actions? You are denying verified facts in favor of religious dogmas that cannot be confirmed.



With so many points at variance, it is difficult to know where to begin. One fact at a time has to be dealt with.

Exactly correct. That's why I constantly strive to find a foundation of agreement but you refuse. You won't even agree on the law of non-contradiction. And so we never make any progress because you repeat the same errors over and over and over again no matter how many times they have been explained. All of this would change in an instant if you would simply agree to find a common foundation of agreement upon which we can build. But you can't do that, because you know that if you agree to anything in reality, it will ultimate contradict your religious beliefs, and so you refuse to be rational.



It is fact that the science we are dealing with is called 'Theoretical Physics'. As such, the theory cannot be proved by experiment.

Wow. I've explained this error many times, and yet you repeat it once again. In science, a "theory" is the EXPLANATION of the facts. Theoretical physics focuses on the theory but the theory is not accepted as true unless confirmed by experimental facts. Your assertion that "the theory cannot be proven by experiment" is true only in the sense that science doesn't "prove" things. The proper scientific language is "theories are TESTED by experiment." The fact that you misuse the word "prove" shows that you have yet to understand the most basic element of science. Science cannot "prove" explanations (theories) because maybe tomorrow there will be a new observation that contradicts the existing theory. This is why science is powerful and religion is not. There is no way for you to "prove" anything about your beliefs in the Bible.



The things being discussed cannot be proven in the laboratory under experimental conditions. The science is highly dependent upon mathematics to model what is happening. "How good is the model?" we might ask. On Richard's side, the model is accepted, whilst on the opposite side, we question the validity of the model. For the model to even stand a chance of being shown correct, it has to be assumed that initial conditions could be established.

What gross arrogance! You think you "question the model"? You don't understand the most basic elements of physics. I had to explain them over and over and you still didn't understand, and then you quit the conversation. Your assertion that creationists "question the model" is utterly absurd. They don't understand the first thing about the science they reject. I've proven this in thousands of posts on this forum.



The gas helium contains two hydrogen atoms so the same can be said of hydrogen
Helium (and Hydrogen) are escaping the gravitational pull of the earth. That begs the question how hydrogen gas was compressed under gravity in the first place. I know we have the mathematical equations as Richard has presented in the mathematical equation he cited, but this goes against what is found in practice. OK, so let's say we have a mass of hydrogen gas produced by some means. That gas has to have the correct initial conditions for gravity to take effect and attract the hydrogen atoms in the way that meets the mathematical equation. That is one perspective of how hydrogen came to accumulate at the core of a star. The other perspective is that there is an outside force (unknown to science, but known as God) compressing the hydrogen gas together. With an outside force compressing the gas together, it would be impossible for any hydrogen to escape. The problem with the natural model (as I see it) is that hydrogen will escape and not come together because it was always escaping from the moment of the Big Bang.

Who says "this goes against what is found in practice?" You cited no evidence for that assertion. Your quote about the hydrogen escaping from the earth's atmosphere is totally irrelevant and shows that you don't understand what you are reading.

Your speculations have no foundation in science. They don't even make sense. What does it mean to say that "hydrogen will escape and not come together because it was always escaping from the moment of the Big Bang." Escaping from what? It appears you do not realize that we are talking about clouds of hydrogen in free space. There is nowhere for it to "escape to." The mutual gravitation of the atoms in the cloud will collapse according to the Virial Theorem.



Once again the article cited by L67 is still speculative. Words used in the article like; "suggest", means that evidence is not conclusive. A new fact could come along that would suggest something else. The images shown at the bottom of the article are computer models. Computer models are man-made as a result of man's programming. A tweak of the program here and there could cause a different image to be produced. The science is still being worked on.

You want to talk about "speculative" ideas? Try looking at your interpretation of the bible. There's no way for you to confirm the truth of any of its claims. You don't have a time machine. YOU WEREN'T THERE (to hijack the fundamentalist mantra) so you can't say that anything in the Bible is true. It could be all made up for all you know. You have no way to confirm anything. It's all speculation, whereas there is evidence for science. But you don't care about evidence. You cherry pick science looking for areas of unknowns so you can insert your God of the Gaps. Nothing could be more absurd.

This reveals your double standard. You reject science that can be confirmed by observation, and accept your own private interpretations of the Bible that cannot be confirmed.

The problem here is you demand for black and white answers when there are none. Fundamentalists can't handle any shades of gray. So you think that the lack of absolute certainty in physics somehow SUGGESTS that it might "change" whereas the "Bible" will never changed, all the while you fail to see that your interpretation of the Bible could change. You could even conclude that it is false. There's no way for you to know what you may learn tomorrow. So the Bible gives you no more "certainty" than science. Indeed, it gives you NO certainty at all compared to the level of certainty you can find in the experimental sciences.

Your "certainty" concerning the Bible is completely delusional.



L67 talks about the last 50 years, yet the information in the images produced from the different wavelengths detected were taken in 2011. In one snapshot in time, we are do deduce what took millions of years to form a star and is still taking millions of years to observe. For a start L67 and Richard should explain to me what the different wavelengths are meant to represent. Here is a reply to why stars take so long to form as confirmation of the length of time;

Why should we explain anything? You are not looking for knowledge. You are looking for "holes" in science so you can find a gap for your god.

Science is based on repeatable observations. So here is the question: Is there any repeatable experiment that requires a god for an explanation? I say the answer is no.

This is why creationists always appeal to IGNORANCE when trying to prove their God. There is no place in the realm of KNOWLEDGE for him.



As for condensing hydrogen gas to form stars, Richard has given another mathematical equation to explain what is happening, but can that be shown to be true in practice? I began this thread with saying, "I am grappling to understand this". Richard and L67 should not hide behind the articles they present, but should be able to answer the questions that those articles raise.

I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS AND YOU SHOWED NO UNDERSTANDING AND THEN QUIT THE CONVERSATION! :doh:



Could the initial conditions ever come about naturally? The same question comes into play as with other aspects of evolution. Evolution is started from the first cell, but in my book, Evolution has to start with the first atom before the first star. How did these things come into existence? I do not believe they came from nothing, but accepting the relativistic relation between mass and energy as expressed by Einstein's equation, the universe came from pure energy, which I associate with God. God and his energy/power has always existed from infinity and will do so for infinity. That is the only answer anyone can give, otherwise "where did God come from?". These concepts are difficult to get our head around. How mass forms from energy is a BIG MYSTERY.

There is no need to posit a god. If God can be eternal, so natural reality can be eternal without any god. The concept of God adds nothing to our understanding. This is the point of this whole thread. You and John are trying to avoid the force of my argument. There is no repeatable experiment that requires a god for an explanation. So the creationists must run off to speculations about the "origin" of all things. In other words, creationists must run and hide in the obscurity of ignorance since that is the only place for their God. And this makes perfect sense because their god was created by primitive men living in pre-scientific age of ignorance. It all makes perfect sense.



Once it is accepted there is a power greater than anything known, that has the power to make the first atom, then anything is possible. To explain the operation of God by taking God away, is what the Evolutionists are trying to explain. Something exists, therefore there has to be an explanation for its existence. Science has to find an explanation that does not include God. Science has reached the limits of measurement and there is very little else to be found out. Science is coming up against barriers that to some, it is wishful thinking the barriers can be got over . Others are resigned to the fact that the limit is reached and there are still more questions than answers.

By your logic, you need an explanation for God's existence. But you don't have that. Most theists will make up the silly idea that God exists "by necessity" but that doesn't explain anything. Why does "necessity" exist? This is the radical incoherence of the Christian argument. They have no explanation for the existence of god.



In conclusion, I see a resemblance between science with all its suggestions and theories masquerading as truth, to be summed up in the tone of language found in Isaiah 28; 13-15
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

For the word "lies" in verse 15 read; "not the truth", or "suggestions and theories".

All the best
David
Suggestions and theories .... like "There is a God"? Or like "The Bible is God's Word"? Or like "Evil-lution is a lie?"

:lol:

Your position is totally incoherent. You treat your own speculative theories about the Bible as if they were not speculations, and you reject the scientifically established results as if they were nothing but speculations. You world is entirely upside down.

:uplane:

David M
08-21-2014, 10:25 PM
Hello Richard

Hey there David,

There you go again, falsely accusing L67 and me of "attacking" when we are in fact simply speaking truth that is being rejected without any reason other than blind religious dogma. I get very tired of your continual false accusations. Case in point: you quit the conversation about star formation after I had given series of extensive scientific explanations that you evidently did not understand. The proof is there for all to see in post #4 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3491-The-First-Simplest-Star&p=65935#post65935) of this thread. John had rudely attacked me, insinuating that I had not answered because I was "unable to find a satisfactory google result." And then you pervert reality and say that I am the one attacking? How freaking typical of blind believers committed to immorality. They mindlessly reject science that they don't understand and attack people who point out their ignorance by falsely accusing us of being the attackers. As I've explained to you many times over the past few years, if you want these kinds of accusations to stop, then you need to stop making them! Two You say that the evidence is not "substantive enough"? You blindly accept anything you think the Bible says without any evidence at all, and reject the ten thousand confirmed scientific results that you don't even understand. How is it possible you can't see the absurdity of your actions? You are denying verified facts in favor of religious dogmas that cannot be confirmed. Why do you not attack the scientific arguments? This has nothing to do with religious dogma. I am not attacking you now, however, I stated a fact. You are doing the same all over again and are not dealing with the science. There is disagreement among scientists as to theories, as there is disagreement as to what parts of the Bible means. I will deal with what the Bible means separately from science.



Exactly correct. That's why I constantly strive to find a foundation of agreement but you refuse. You won't even agree on the law of non-contradiction. And so we never make any progress because you repeat the same errors over and over and over again no matter how many times they have been explained. All of this would change in an instant if you would simply agree to find a common foundation of agreement upon which we can build. But you can't do that, because you know that if you agree to anything in reality, it will ultimate contradict your religious beliefs, and so you refuse to be rational.I would not disagree with you unless I had grounds to do so. I have seen your logic at work and heard your explanations and I have explained why I disagree. I am not going over all that again. If you want to concentrate on one specific point at time do so, but stop bringing up loads of irrelevances as you are doing now.



Wow. I've explained this error many times, and yet you repeat it once again. In science, a "theory" is the EXPLANATION of the facts. Theoretical physics focuses on the theory but the theory is not accepted as true unless confirmed by experimental facts. Your assertion that "the theory cannot be proven by experiment" is true only in the sense that science doesn't "prove" things. The proper scientific language is "theories are TESTED by experiment." The fact that you misuse the word "prove" shows that you have yet to understand the most basic element of science. Science cannot "prove" explanations (theories) because maybe tomorrow there will be a new observation that contradicts the existing theory. This is why science is powerful and religion is not. There is no way for you to "prove" anything about your beliefs in the Bible. In science the facts change, hence the theories change. A theory holds true (or is not bettered) until another fact comes along, which has to be taken into account. Once again, this argument has nothing to do with religious dogma.


What gross arrogance! You think you "question the model"? You don't understand the most basic elements of physics. I had to explain them over and over and you still didn't understand, and then you quit the conversation. Your assertion that creationists "question the model" is utterly absurd. They don't understand the first thing about the science they reject. I've proven this in thousands of posts on this forum. You are not talking to a scientific illiterate, though that is how you like to portray me and that is your style to belittle anyone who challenges your own opinion. Who is the more arrogant of the two of us, others can decide?


Who says "this goes against what is found in practice?" You cited no evidence for that assertion. Your quote about the hydrogen escaping from the earth's atmosphere is totally irrelevant and shows that you don't understand what you are reading.
Your speculations have no foundation in science. They don't even make sense. What does it mean to say that "hydrogen will escape and not come together because it was always escaping from the moment of the Big Bang." Escaping from what? It appears you do not realize that we are talking about clouds of hydrogen in free space. There is nowhere for it to "escape to." The mutual gravitation of the atoms in the cloud will collapse according to the Virial Theorem. Explain to me why two hydrogen atoms are not attracted by their mass. Why is not the gravity of the earth sufficient to stop helium escaping? Begin answering the questions to a point where your answers can be accepted. The Virial Theorem assumes initial conditions that might not be met. Unless the gravity exerts an equal apparent pressure (pull) it is like trying squash a balloon. Any overall weakness or lack of uniform pressure will cause the balloon to bulge and the air inside the balloon tries to escape causing the bulge where there is a weakness in the external applied pressure.



You want to talk about "speculative" ideas? Try looking at your interpretation of the bible. There's no way for you to confirm the truth of any of its claims. You don't have a time machine. YOU WEREN'T THERE (to hijack the fundamentalist mantra) so you can't say that anything in the Bible is true. It could be all made up for all you know. You have no way to confirm anything. It's all speculation, whereas there is evidence for science. But you don't care about evidence. You cherry pick science looking for areas of unknowns so you can insert your God of the Gaps. Nothing could be more absurd.

This reveals your double standard. You reject science that can be confirmed by observation, and accept your own private interpretations of the Bible that cannot be confirmed.You are switching the subject. That is in your attempt to win the argument by false means. You simply deny the tactics you are using. The evidence speaks for itself.


The problem here is you demand for black and white answers when there are none. Fundamentalists can't handle any shades of gray. So you think that the lack of absolute certainty in physics somehow SUGGESTS that it might "change" whereas the "Bible" will never changed, all the while you fail to see that your interpretation of the Bible could change. You could even conclude that it is false. There's no way for you to know what you may learn tomorrow. So the Bible gives you no more "certainty" than science. Indeed, it gives you NO certainty at all compared to the level of certainty you can find in the experimental sciences. So why are you claiming you are correct in your use of logic such as the law of non-contradiction and use of the subjunctive clause in a sentence, which I have challenged you on and shows that the answer you think you are giving is black and white. You are just the author of contradiction as you accuse others of.


Your "certainty" concerning the Bible is completely delusional. And your "certainty" of science is delusional. Science is changing its answers as new facts come to light. The fact is the universe as a whole is what it is. The understanding of God's word can change as new meanings come to light, but God's word as it has been revealed does not change; it is what it is. In the same respect, if the universe is a closed system, nothing is lost or gained and it is what it is and we are only finding out what is there.


Why should we explain anything? You are not looking for knowledge. You are looking for "holes" in science so you can find a gap for your god.If there are holes in the science, there are holes in the science. This has nothing to do with finding a gap. Why talk about anything if we are going to end up saying everything is moot, because we cannot draw any conclusive evidence.



Science is based on repeatable observations. So here is the question: Is there any repeatable experiment that requires a god for an explanation? I say the answer is no. Science cannot prove God, God is not observable by science. The only proof of God is that only God can tell the future. Whether you believe in prophecy told hundreds of years before it came true is an entirely different subject and not part of this argument about the formation of the first simplest star.


This is why creationists always appeal to IGNORANCE when trying to prove their God. There is no place in the realm of KNOWLEDGE for him. What ignorance are you talking about? There is much ignorance on both sides. Many scientists do not know what the Bible says, therefore they do not understand the Bible. The same can be said about the average person and science. They do not understand science, or the mathematical equations behind the science. Those people can be easily fooled by the scientific argument.


I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS AND YOU SHOWED NO UNDERSTANDING AND THEN QUIT THE CONVERSATION! :doh: I have answered your questions and I have not quit, or I would not be continuing now. I am not for continuing in the same vane as you are doing now and for that reason as I have stated before, I shall quit if you continue to switch the argument. As you know, it is too easy to be sidetracked by other threads and threads get abandoned or threads come to a natural halt. John has picked this thread up and so it continues. Now just deal with each fact one at a time and stop wasting time and cyberspace with your rhetoric.



There is no need to posit a god. If God can be eternal, so natural reality can be eternal without any god. The concept of God adds nothing to our understanding. This is the point of this whole thread. You and John are trying to avoid the force of my argument. There is no repeatable experiment that requires a god for an explanation. So the creationists must run off to speculations about the "origin" of all things. In other words, creationists must run and hide in the obscurity of ignorance since that is the only place for their God. And this makes perfect sense because their god was created by primitive men living in pre-scientific age of ignorance. It all makes perfect sense. Once again, the proof of God is not the subject of this thread. All you have done is give a mathematical equation to explain the mechanism whereby hydrogen gas might condense under its own gravity. That is the challenge for science to prove by experiment.


By your logic, you need an explanation for God's existence. But you don't have that. Most theists will make up the silly idea that God exists "by necessity" but that doesn't explain anything. Why does "necessity" exist? This is the radical incoherence of the Christian argument. They have no explanation for the existence of god. I have given you one explanation, to prove God's existence. I am not intending to give any proof to explain why God exists, although others might be able to do so.


Suggestions and theories .... like "There is a God"? Or like "The Bible is God's Word"? Or like "Evil-lution is a lie?" Maybe God has you in derision and you are not aware of it. It could be seen that it does not take much to delude you, the same as you think others are so easily deluded. Stop the pin-ponging or this will go on ad infinitum.


Your position is totally incoherent. You treat your own speculative theories about the Bible as if they were not speculations, and you reject the scientifically established results as if they were nothing but speculations. You world is entirely upside down. No more so than yours, but until you stay on topic and address the issues in question, the same old rhetoric will come from you. And you wonder why I say I am going to quit, even though I am continuing to waste my time answering the same allegations when I have given you my explanations. The fact is, you disagree with me and I disagree with you, so stick to one subject and one matter at a time in order to try and find a resolution on which to build.

To get back on track. Did the universe start with a Big Bang from a singularity? Did rapid expansion and inflation take place? Contrary to what was popular theory and the theory is changing to suit new facts, at one time it was thought the universe would stop expanding and would eventually contract again to a singularity. Now, the universe is observed to be expanding at fast rate and not slowing down, and so dark matter is invented to explain this, but what is dark matter that cannot be seen or detected? Maybe the answer to whether a star can form or not cannot be answered until some other basic facts are understood.

And on that note, maybe these discussions should be approached from the agnostic perspective. I have been listening recently to Dr David Berlinski;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski
David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American philosopher, educator, and author. Berlinski is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is theologically agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life.[1] He has written on philosophy, mathematics and a variety of fictional works.

Here is a sample video and it is not put forward with the intention to switch the argument to biological evolution. This is one short video to show the perspective of one agnostic and his view of the scientific, or unscientific arguments put forward. This is not coming from someone you can accuse of having a "religious dogma". If you want to argue against someone, why not argue against Berlinski?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

David M
08-22-2014, 12:59 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
Hey there David,

I commend your desire for evidence, but I am mystified by what appears to be a double standard. The Bible would not stand if you held it up to the same standards.

Also, you seem to be confused about the universal law of gravitation. It is called "universal" because any two objects with mass will attract each other according to the following formula:

Name: gravity.gif Views: 26 Size: 1.8 KB


If you DO THE MATH with interstellar gas clouds you will find that they will collapse under certain conditions. You would know this if you understood the physics underlying the virial theorem and thermodynamics. Here's a brief explanation from the wiki:
An interstellar cloud of gas will remain in hydrostatic equilibrium as long as the kinetic energy of the gas pressure is in balance with the potential energy of the internal gravitational force. Mathematically this is expressed using the virial theorem, which states that, to maintain equilibrium, the gravitational potential energy must equal twice the internal thermal energy.[14] If a cloud is massive enough that the gas pressure is insufficient to support it, the cloud will undergo gravitational collapse. The mass above which a cloud will undergo such collapse is called the Jeans mass. The Jeans mass depends on the temperature and density of the cloud, but is typically thousands to tens of thousands of solar masses.[2] This coincides with the typical mass of an open cluster of stars, which is the end product of a collapsing cloud.[15]
This is what constantly blows my mind. You reject science on the pretext of a "lack of proof" (which is not actually missing at all) even as you blindly accept an ancient pre-scientific religious text that is filled with mythologies, superstitious, and errors. I just don't get it. The whole point of science is PROOF whereas the foundation of religion is blind FAITH. It makes no sense for you to challenge science since it has ten trillion times as much evidence supporting it compared with the Bible.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability
It was later pointed out by other astrophysicists that in fact, the original analysis used by Jeans was flawed, for the following reason. In his formal analysis, Jeans assumed that the collapsing region of the cloud was surrounded by an infinite, static medium. In fact, because all scales greater than the Jeans length are also unstable to collapse, any initially static medium surrounding a collapsing region will in fact also be collapsing. As a result, the growth rate of the gravitational instability relative to the density of the collapsing background is slower than that predicted by Jeans' original analysis. This flaw has come to be known as the "Jeans swindle".
The Jeans instability likely determines when star formation occurs in molecular clouds.

L67
08-22-2014, 07:07 AM
And on that note, maybe these discussions should be approached from the agnostic perspective. I have been listening recently to Dr David Berlinski;


Here is a sample video and it is not put forward with the intention to switch the argument to biological evolution. This is one short video to show the perspective of one agnostic and his view of the scientific, or unscientific arguments put forward. This is not coming from someone you can accuse of having a "religious dogma". If you want to argue against someone, why not argue against Berlinski?



David,

I don't have time to comment on your whole post but I wanted to say a a few things here. He is NOT someone worth listening to. Why don't you try listening to someone who has the credentials to educate you about evolution?

You're listening to the wrong person David. Berlinski is total buffoon. He works for the Discovery Institute. From the article you posted about Berlinski. [QUOTE]A critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that is a hub of the intelligent design movement. Berlinski shares the movement's disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant.[/B]

He can say he is not in favor of Intelligent Design but his involvement with the Discover Institute tells you everything you need to know.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-22-2014, 07:36 AM
David,

I don't have time to comment on your whole post but I wanted to say a a few things here. He is NOT someone worth listening to. Why don't you try listening to someone who has the credentials to educate you about evolution?

You're listening to the wrong person David. Berlinski is total buffoon. He works for the Discovery Institute. From the article you posted about Berlinski.
A critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that is a hub of the intelligent design movement. Berlinski shares the movement's disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant.[/B]


He can say he is not in favor of Intelligent Design but his involvement with the Discover Institute tells you everything you need to know.

Good point L67. David likes to pretend he is being "open minded" and "agnostic" and "looking for answers" but he's not actually studying legitimate science and he's certainly not "looking for answers." He's looking for holes in science so he can cast doubt on it to make it easier to believe the Bible.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-22-2014, 08:06 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability
It was later pointed out by other astrophysicists that in fact, the original analysis used by Jeans was flawed, for the following reason. In his formal analysis, Jeans assumed that the collapsing region of the cloud was surrounded by an infinite, static medium. In fact, because all scales greater than the Jeans length are also unstable to collapse, any initially static medium surrounding a collapsing region will in fact also be collapsing. As a result, the growth rate of the gravitational instability relative to the density of the collapsing background is slower than that predicted by Jeans' original analysis. This flaw has come to be known as the "Jeans swindle".

The Jeans instability likely determines when star formation occurs in molecular clouds.


Hey there David,

I have no doubt that seeing the word "swindle" used in relation to science is to you like raw meat to a lion. With every post, you demonstrate that you don't care about actually understanding the science. You are cherry picking bits and pieces out of context looking for anything to cast doubt on science.

Case in point: You didn't explain why, or even if, the "Jeans swindle" is relevant to our discussion. The simple truth is that it is not. The fact that you posted it demonstrates you did not understand what you were posting. The article does not say that Jean's mass is flawed. It says his original analysis was flawed. And what was the flaw? I highlighted it red for you: "Jeans assumed that the collapsing region of the cloud was surrounded by an infinite, static medium." Jeans made assumptions to make the calculations easier. This does not cast any doubt on the results that I have posted.

If you really want to understand the science, you can read this paper:

MATHEMATICAL VINDICATIONS OF THE “JEANS SWINDLE” (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9910247v1.pdf)
Michael K.-H. Kiessling
Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University
110 Frelinghuysen Rd., Piscataway, N.J. 08854

The paper begins:

In 1902, J.H. Jeans [1] derived his celebrated dispersion relation

ω2 = |k|2c2s − 4πGρ0

governing the evolution of infinitesimal disturbances of a fictitious infinitely extended,
homogeneous and isotropic, static fluid of mass density ρ0 that is coupled to Newtonian
gravity.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-22-2014, 10:13 AM
Good morning David, :yo:


Hello Richard
Why do you not attack the scientific arguments? This has nothing to do with religious dogma. I am not attacking you now, however, I stated a fact. You are doing the same all over again and are not dealing with the science. There is disagreement among scientists as to theories, as there is disagreement as to what parts of the Bible means. I will deal with what the Bible means separately from science.

You are the one who chose to open your post with accusations of "attack." So I responded to your accusations. If you don't want to go that route, then don't go that route. It's really very simple.



Explain to me why two hydrogen atoms are not attracted by their mass.

Your assumption that "hydrogen atoms are not attracted by their mass" is false. Two hydrogen atoms are always attracted to each other with a force given by Newton's Law of Gravity, as explained in previous posts.

It seems that the actual question you meant to ask is this: "Why is the gravitational force between two hydrogen atoms not sufficient to cause them to be gravitationally bound to each other?" The answer is simple. If the kinetic energy is greater than the gravitational potential energy, then the atoms will not be gravitationally bound. You should be familiar with this since it is basically the same as the concept of "escape velocity."

In physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), escape velocity is the speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed) at which the kinetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) plus the gravitational potential energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential_energy) of an object is zero. It is the speed needed to "break free" from the gravitational attraction of a massive body, without further propulsion, i.e., without spending more fuel.



Why is not the gravity of the earth sufficient to stop helium escaping?

Because the helium is very light and so floats to the top of the atmosphere where it can be hit by cosmic rays which impart sufficient energy to reach escape velocity. Here is the explanation in the wiki:
One classical thermal escape mechanism is Jeans escape.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape#cite_note-Catling2009-1) In a quantity of gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas), the average velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity) of a molecule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule) is determined by temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature), but the velocity of individual molecules varies continuously as they collide with one another, gaining and losing kinetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy). The variation in kinetic energy among the molecules is described by the Maxwell distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_distribution).

Individual molecules in the high tail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail) of the distribution may reach escape velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity), at a level in the atmosphere where the mean free path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_free_path) is comparable to thescale height (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_height), and leave the atmosphere.

The more massive the molecule of a gas is, the lower the average velocity of molecules of that gas at a given temperature, and the less likely it is that any of them reach escape velocity.

This is why hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) escapes from an atmosphere more easily than does carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide).
You could have answered this question yourself in half a minute if you were actually interested in learning science.


The Virial Theorem assumes initial conditions that might not be met.

Are you asserting they will never be met? If so, please provide the evidence. If not, then what's your point?



Unless the gravity exerts an equal apparent pressure (pull) it is like trying squash a balloon. Any overall weakness or lack of uniform pressure will cause the balloon to bulge and the air inside the balloon tries to escape causing the bulge where there is a weakness in the external applied pressure.
I have no idea what you think you are talking about. Did you just make this up, or do you have a source. If you have a source, please provide it.



The only proof of God is that only God can tell the future. Whether you believe in prophecy told hundreds of years before it came true is an entirely different subject and not part of this argument about the formation of the first simplest star.

All attempts, by your and all other Christians, to prove fulfilled prophecy have utterly failed. For example, Dr. Hugh Ross claimed there were about 2000 prophecies that have been "fulfilled letter for letter with no errors." I proved his claim is not only false but utterly insane in my article Two Thousand Reasons to Believe Dr. Hugh Ross Might Not Be Entirely Credible (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/03/29/2000-reasons-to-believe-hugh-ross-might-be-wrong/). This is, of course, a topic for another thread. I'm commenting here merely because you brought it up.



To get back on track. Did the universe start with a Big Bang from a singularity?

The concept of the singularity comes from General Relativity that probably breaks down at very small scales due to quantum effects so it probably didn't start with a singularity. Nobody knows because we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity, so the question is moot. It's unanswerable given our current knowledge.



Maybe the answer to whether a star can form or not cannot be answered until some other basic facts are understood.

There is no question about the fact of star formation. It is an observational fact.

Great chatting,

:sunny:

Richard

L67
08-22-2014, 05:45 PM
Good point L67. David likes to pretend he is being "open minded" and "agnostic" and "looking for answers" but he's not actually studying legitimate science and he's certainly not "looking for answers." He's looking for holes in science so he can cast doubt on it to make it easier to believe the Bible.

:yo: Richard,

It's rather telling that creationist can't support their beliefs with logic and facts. Instead, they choose to attack the legitimacy of science that contradicts their beliefs. Even if they "could" disprove evolution, that doesn't automatically prove creation. Also, it appears to me creationists never come up with their own "theory". It seems they just hitch their wagon to science and cram god into whatever gap he will fit. If god really does exist, then why does it seem he emulate the explanations humans have come up with for our existence? I know the obvious answer, but why can't creationists realize this? How can anyone ever get through to these people? I swear religiosity should be classified as a mental health condition. I have never witnessed a sect of people so resistant to learning as Christians are.

I'm so glad I shook that dark cloud over my head and I found this forum. This forum is invaluable. Thanks for being the happy host.

Take care.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-22-2014, 08:45 PM
:yo: Richard,

It's rather telling that creationist can't support their beliefs with logic and facts. Instead, they choose to attack the legitimacy of science that contradicts their beliefs. Even if they "could" disprove evolution, that doesn't automatically prove creation. Also, it appears to me creationists never come up with their own "theory". It seems they just hitch their wagon to science and cram god into whatever gap he will fit. If god really does exist, then why does it seem he emulate the explanations humans have come up with for our existence? I know the obvious answer, but why can't creationists realize this? How can anyone ever get through to these people? I swear religiosity should be classified as a mental health condition. I have never witnessed a sect of people so resistant to learning as Christians are.

I'm so glad I shook that dark cloud over my head and I found this forum. This forum is invaluable. Thanks for being the happy host.

Take care.
Hey there L67! :tea:

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your many valuable contributions to this forum. You've taken up the slack a number of times when I didn't have the time (or stomach) to refute some of the creationist crap.

Why do creationists reject truth so vehemently? The most obvious reason is because they've been brainwashed with utterly wicked doctrine that they will suffer eternal death (either annihilation or conscious torment in hell) if they don't believe the Bible. This makes THINKING the most dangerous thing they could do. THINKING threatens their salvation! It threatens them with death. Such doctrines are "mind killers" based on the ultimate mind-killer, fear. Here is how Frank Herbert expressed it in his Dune trilogy:

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Rose and I discovered the door to freedom back in the winter of 2009-2010 when we began having long talks around a campfire. The door began to open when we asked ourselves "Why should we care what other people think of us?" As we explored this question, we began to break free from the religious social structures that keep minds trapped through fear. The question kept coming, and with each question we became more confident to think for ourselves. The rest is "history" as they say. We've never been happier and cannot imagine "looking back." We were in bondage to religious dogmas and now we are free.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

Richard

David M
08-23-2014, 01:26 AM
Hey there L67! :tea:

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your many valuable contributions to this forum. You've taken up the slack a number of times when I didn't have the time (or stomach) to refute some of the creationist crap.

Why do creationists reject truth so vehemently? The most obvious reason is because they've been brainwashed with utterly wicked doctrine that they will suffer eternal death (either annihilation or conscious torment in hell) if they don't believe the Bible. This makes THINKING the most dangerous thing they could do. THINKING threatens their salvation! It threatens them with death. Such doctrines are "mind killers" based on the ultimate mind-killer, fear. Here is how Frank Herbert expressed it in his Dune trilogy:

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Rose and I discovered the door to freedom back in the winter of 2009-2010 when we began having long talks around a campfire. The door began to open when we asked ourselves "Why should we care what other people think of us?" As we explored this question, we began to break free from the religious social structures that keep minds trapped through fear. The question kept coming, and with each question we became more confident to think for ourselves. The rest is "history" as they say. We've never been happier and cannot imagine "looking back." We were in bondage to religious dogmas and now we are free.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

Richard


Once again, another off topic interlude in the thread. Maybe we should have a section devoted to patting each other on the back and having a group hug :grouphug5:

David M
08-23-2014, 02:10 AM
Hey there David,

I have no doubt that seeing the word "swindle" used in relation to science is to you like raw meat to a lion. With every post, you demonstrate that you don't care about actually understanding the science. You are cherry picking bits and pieces out of context looking for anything to cast doubt on science.

Case in point: You didn't explain why, or even if, the "Jeans swindle" is relevant to our discussion. The simple truth is that it is not. The fact that you posted it demonstrates you did not understand what you were posting. The article does not say that Jean's mass is flawed. It says his original analysis was flawed. And what was the flaw? I highlighted it red for you: "Jeans assumed that the collapsing region of the cloud was surrounded by an infinite, static medium." Jeans made assumptions to make the calculations easier. This does not cast any doubt on the results that I have posted.

If you really want to understand the science, you can read this paper:

MATHEMATICAL VINDICATIONS OF THE “JEANS SWINDLE” (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9910247v1.pdf)
Michael K.-H. Kiessling
Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University
110 Frelinghuysen Rd., Piscataway, N.J. 08854

The paper begins:

In 1902, J.H. Jeans [1] derived his celebrated dispersion relation

ω2 = |k|2c2s − 4πGρ0

governing the evolution of infinitesimal disturbances of a fictitious infinitely extended,
homogeneous and isotropic, static fluid of mass density ρ0 that is coupled to Newtonian
gravity.

Richard has given me (us) an update to the facts presented in Wikipedia. Maybe someone should add a comment, or update the entry in Wikipedia.

Now we have presented a mathematical "fix" for the "Jeans Swindle". Are there any takers to argue that the mathematical models produced are not supported (proved) by experiment, or observable evidence of a stars formation?

A star we are told takes millions of years to form. From the moment a gas cloud begins to collapse, what is the length of time (typically) for say that gas cloud to reach 1% of its original size? Has a timeline been produced showing the typical duration in time of the stages in the formation of a star? Can someone present in this thread a timeline to a star's formation?

Richard Amiel McGough
08-23-2014, 08:43 AM
Richard has given me (us) an update to the facts presented in Wikipedia. Maybe someone should add a comment, or update the entry in Wikipedia.

Now we have presented a mathematical "fix" for the "Jeans Swindle". Are there any takers to argue that the mathematical models produced are not supported (proved) by experiment, or observable evidence of a stars formation?

A star we are told takes millions of years to form. From the moment a gas cloud begins to collapse, what is the length of time (typically) for say that gas cloud to reach 1% of its original size? Has a timeline been produced showing the typical duration in time of the stages in the formation of a star? Can someone present in this thread a timeline to a star's formation?
Hey there David,

Why are you depending on us for all the answers? Why are you not doing any research and presenting the answers to us in this thread? I've given you many answers that you could have found yourself in a matter of minutes. I get the impression you are not actually interested in learning the science at all, but rather are on a "fishing trip" hoping to find some random fact you can use to cast doubt on science to make room for you otherwise unjustifiable "faith" (i.e. blind belief) in the Bible.

It also is obvious you don't understand the most basic elements of science. There was never any problem with "Jeans swindle" - you grabbed on to that for the same reasons creationists constantly harp on hoaxes like the Piltdown man. You saw the word "swindle" and thought AHA! Scientists are part of a vast conspiracy to deny God! SWINDLE SWINDLE SWINDLE! You can't trust scientists! You can't believe a word the astrophysicists are saying! There is no evidence for star formation! God made them all just six thousand years ago!

Can you justify your assertion that "Jeans mass is flawed" based on the "Jeans swindle"? Nope. And why not? Because "Jeans swindle" is irrelevant to modern theories of star formation. The "swindle" was only in the "original calculations" which involved assumptions of an infinite uniform gas cloud to make calculations easier. This shows, yet again, that you are ignorant of the science and that you are not even interested in learning the science but rather are constantly trolling through science looking for random words like "swindle" that can be taken out of context and abused to imply that that there is a VAST SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRACY to hide the truth of your little gawd. Nothing could be more obvious. Nothing could be more absurd.

Richard

David M
08-27-2014, 01:34 AM
Hello Richard

Hey there David,

Why are you depending on us for all the answers? I am not depending on you for "all the answers, but you must be able to explain what it is you believe in. I have to give an explanation for the hope that is in me, I expect you to be able to explain and give answers to questions I have.


Why are you not doing any research and presenting the answers to us in this thread? I've given you many answers that you could have found yourself in a matter of minutes. I get the impression you are not actually interested in learning the science at all, but rather are on a "fishing trip" hoping to find some random fact you can use to cast doubt on science to make room for you otherwise unjustifiable "faith" (i.e. blind belief) in the Bible. Of course your surmizings are wrong as ever, and you do not know that I have looked for answers in the places you suggest, but I have not found satisfactory answers. That is why I am still asking the question and to you.


It also is obvious you don't understand the most basic elements of science. There was never any problem with "Jeans swindle" - you grabbed on to that for the same reasons creationists constantly harp on hoaxes like the Piltdown man. You saw the word "swindle" and thought AHA! Scientists are part of a vast conspiracy to deny God! SWINDLE SWINDLE SWINDLE! You can't trust scientists! You can't believe a word the astrophysicists are saying! There is no evidence for star formation! God made them all just six thousand years ago!It is obvious you make a false assumption by saying; "you don't understand the most basic elements of science". Comments like that are both hackle raising and arrogant and it is about time you dropped such phrases from your vocabulary and stuck to the facts.
I quoted Wikipedia and as I have said, you or someone should update that Wikipedia article if the conclusion is not correct and there is a sequel to it. At the time, it was regarded as a "swindle" by Jeans and others had to come in and added what Jeans left out. Fortunate that what Jeans left out, made no difference.


Can you justify your assertion that "Jeans mass is flawed" based on the "Jeans swindle"? Nope. And why not? Because "Jeans swindle" is irrelevant to modern theories of star formation. The "swindle" was only in the "original calculations" which involved assumptions of an infinite uniform gas cloud to make calculations easier. This shows, yet again, that you are ignorant of the science and that you are not even interested in learning the science but rather are constantly trolling through science looking for random words like "swindle" that can be taken out of context and abused to imply that that there is a VAST SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRACY to hide the truth of your little gawd. Nothing could be more obvious. Nothing could be more absurd. There you go again, trying to belittle me by saying I am ignorant of the science. If ignorance is "not all-knowing" then all of us are ignorant to some extend and I can claim you are ignorant of the Bible. I am learning and adding to my scientific knowledge the same as you are.
I am finding articles in which there is apparent disagreement amongst scientists. You produced evidence that overcame the "Jeans swindle" and that has been acknowledged by me.
The basis of all this is mathematics and that mathematics is also having to rely on initial conditions that cannot be proven to be possible. We still do not know whether the mathematical equations are accurate enough to model the universe and the laws of nature, or whether those equations can be modified a stage further. As I have said to you in another post in another thread, you have to be able to explain complex mathematical equations in terms the layman can understand, otherwise you are proving things in a foreign language in which your audience cannot understand.

On the subject of theories, because a theory exists, does not mean that theory is correct. The same goes for Evolution theory. It is work in progress with no definite proof that explains the whole spectrum of life. As evidence that theories can be not true, I found this for the definition of abiogenesis;

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis?s=t
Abiogenesis
noun, Biology
1. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. If you disagree with that statement about the theory, then you have to take it up with the authors of the website.

All the best
David

jce
09-07-2014, 08:09 AM
The idea that stars are still forming is merely an assumption. Astronomers assume that new stars are being formed, and so they consider ways in which it must occur. It is not a scientific fact that new stars are being formed. The idea is so problematic that there is not even a sound theory of it.

The Bible states that the stars were formed by God and the heavens were stretched out by him. In other words, stars did not form themselves, they were formed by someone.


"Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." Isaiah 40:26

So, what is happening in the heavens? Here is what is actually observed... Entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics at work in the winding down of the universe. We observe cataclysm, catastrophe, collisions and the debris of those collisions which are referred to as dust clouds. When star formation is mentioned, it is carefully qualified by stating that they observe "the places" where stars are forming. Note that stars forming are not observed, only that what they label as "stellar nurseries" are observed. The assumption is that this is the "place" that stars form. Read carefully the theories of men and you will find the "loopholes", or the quote mined "nuggets truth" which expose "the assumptions".

The Bible confirms what we are observing:


"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed" (Psalm 102:25, 26 KJV)

The universe is winding down, confirmed again here:


"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." (Hebrews 1:10-12 KJV)

The Bible, in no ambiguous way states that the heavens and the earth are finite and will come to an end. Perhaps the following verse suggests how it will end:


"Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger." (Isaiah 13:13 KJV)


"See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. (Hebrews 12:25, 26 KJV)

The unfolding events we see manifested in the heavens may simply be a prelude to the eventual collapse (coming judgment) which may be far off or nearer than we know. There could be a forthcoming chain reaction of cataclysmic events which will culminate in a flaming destruction of the heavens and the earth.


"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:3-7 KJV)


"The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, (2 Peter 3:10-11 KJV)

The current heavens which we now observe are destined to pass away. They will be folded up like an old worn out garment.

Then what? How about this:


"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." (Revelation 21:1-5 KJV)

The following verse confirms that there is a curse and that it will come to an end:


"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him" (Revelation 22:3 KJV)

Not my words. The words of Him who spoke all things into existence, including the stars in the heavens.

John

Edited to modify "eventual collapse (coming judgment) which may be far off or nearer than we know".

Richard Amiel McGough
09-07-2014, 08:52 AM
The Bible states that the stars were formed by God and the heavens were stretched out by him. In other words, stars did not form themselves, they were formed by someone.

Good morning jce,

I'm not sure your interpretation is warranted. The Bible says that God also causes the grass to grow:

Psalm 104:14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;

But we can see grass growing from seeds, so though they may not have "formed themselves" in the beginning (according to your view) they certainly "form themselves" now. We can watch it happen, just like we can watch stars form. And there is nothing in the actual process of grass growing that requires an appeal to any god to explain. It seems that Christians understand that the only place for God is in the distant unknowable past since that's where they always point when trying to prove his existence. He certainly is nowhere "near" in any observable phenomenon.

Have you not considered that God could have designed the physical laws to cause the formation of stars? Is that not how he did everything that we can actually test in the laboratory? The laws of nature explain everything we can test empirically in the lab.

Richard

jce
09-07-2014, 10:00 AM
Good morning jce,

I'm not sure your interpretation is warranted. The Bible says that God also causes the grass to grow:

Psalm 104:14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;

Richard

Good afternoon Richard

I can accept your analogy, but only at the most fundamental level in that He created them both and provided the environment for them. After that, the differences are significant. Consider that He ordained the grass to bear within itself the seeds of reproduction after its kind, whereas there is no mention of this type of reproduction within the stars.

Furthermore, He has given names to the stars and they are the same stars he made in the beginning for not one of them is missing. Needless to say, not so with grass, which is used as an analogy by God to describe the brevity of our existence here.


Have you not considered that God could have designed the physical laws to cause the formation of stars? Is that not how he did everything that we can actually test in the laboratory? The laws of nature explain everything we can test empirically in the lab.

If that is the standard, then yes, there are limitations, however, the God of the Bible is not your standard scientist who works in a lab conducting experiments in an effort to understand how things work. He commanded the elements (the things which are not seen) to materialize into the substances we are familiar with.

These laws of nature are subject to Him and not vise-versa. He is not subject to scientific reductionism. On the contrary, He is a very capable and powerful Creator as can be observed in the vastness of the heavens and the miniscule of the sub-atomic realm at the other end of the spectrum.

Must run now, but will return later, Lord willing, to respond to a few other posts.:yo:

John

Edited to correct "you" to "your".

Rose
09-07-2014, 12:53 PM
Good afternoon Richard

I can accept your analogy, but only at the most fundamental level in that He created them both and provided the environment for them. After that, the differences are significant. Consider that He ordained the grass to bear within itself the seeds of reproduction after its kind, whereas there is no mention of this type of reproduction within the stars.

Furthermore, He has given names to the stars and they are the same stars he made in the beginning for not one of them is missing. Needless to say, not so with grass, which is used as an analogy by God to describe the brevity of our existence here.




Hello John,

If as you say, god has named all the stars and not one of them is missing ... how do you account for all the stars that have exploded, or are in the process of exploding into galactic dust?

Kind regards,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-07-2014, 01:21 PM
Hello John,

If as you say, god has named all the stars and not one of them is missing ... how do you account for all the stars that have exploded, or are in the process of exploding into galactic dust?

Kind regards,
Rose
Good question.

John simply denies all science. He asserts, without any evidence of any kind, that "It is not a scientific fact that new stars are being formed. The idea is so problematic that there is not even a sound theory of it." The truth is exactly the opposite. The overall pattern of the life cycle of stars is very well known and scientifically established upon mountains of observational data. Here's a snippet from a publication called Stellar Evolution (http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ast21/handouts/StellarEvolution.PDF) by Tufts University:

Stars live for a very long time compared to human lifetimes. Even though stellar life-spans are enormous, we know how stars are born, live, and die. All stars follow the same basic series of steps in their lives: Gas Cloud -> Proto star -> Main Sequence star -> Red Giant and/or Supergiant -> Horizontal Branch star (only if it has a low mass) -> Variable Star (RR Lyra, Cepheid or WVirgins) -> Red Giant and/or Supergiant -> Planetary Nebula (low mass) or Supernova (high mass star) -> Stellar Remnant (white Dwarf, Neutron Star, or Black Hole).

jce
09-07-2014, 03:30 PM
Hello John,

If as you say, god has named all the stars and not one of them is missing ... how do you account for all the stars that have exploded, or are in the process of exploding into galactic dust?

Kind regards,
Rose

Hello Rose

Who said stars were missing? That's something you've assumed. When stars exhaust their fuel they remain in existence as Red Giants, White Dwarfs, Neutron Stars, etc.

According to His Word, the stars will remain until God causes their cessation. He set the stars in place for signs and seasons and in due time, they will be folded up with the heaven (collapsed) like an old used garment.

It appears that we are actually observing a process of universal degeneration.

John

jce
09-07-2014, 03:39 PM
Good question.

John simply denies all science.

False statement and another putdown.


He asserts, without any evidence of any kind, that "It is not a scientific fact that new stars are being formed. The idea is so problematic that there is not even a sound theory of it." The truth is exactly the opposite. The overall pattern of the life cycle of stars is very well known and scientifically established upon mountains of observational data. Here's a snippet from a publication called Stellar Evolution (http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ast21/handouts/StellarEvolution.PDF) by Tufts University:

Stars live for a very long time compared to human lifetimes. Even though stellar life-spans are enormous, we know how stars are born, live, and die. All stars follow the same basic series of steps in their lives: Gas Cloud -> Proto star -> Main Sequence star -> Red Giant and/or Supergiant -> Horizontal Branch star (only if it has a low mass) -> Variable Star (RR Lyra, Cepheid or WVirgins) -> Red Giant and/or Supergiant -> Planetary Nebula (low mass) or Supernova (high mass star) -> Stellar Remnant (white Dwarf, Neutron Star, or Black Hole).

Richard

I examined your referenced link. It is as I said, all based on assumption. The first assumption in the chart is that there was dust. Where did that come from?

John

Richard Amiel McGough
09-07-2014, 04:10 PM
False statement and another putdown.

Hey there John,

I'm sorry. My statement was not meant as a putdown. It is a straightforward statement of the facts as I see them. When you reject the sciences of evolution, geology, and astrophysics you are in effect rejecting all science because the sciences are integrated and unified whole because reality is a unified whole. The age of the earth is determined using results from Quantum Physics (radiometric dating) as well as plate tectonics, Newtonian mechanics, mathematics, chemistry, evolution, geology, biology, etc., etc., etc. Likewise, when you reject the observations regarding star formation you are rejecting hundreds of thousands of hours of tested, repeated, and peer reviewed research. You have no basis for you adherence to your peculiar interpretation of the Bible as if it trumped observational science. Sorry, but those are the facts.

I have presented a lot of evidence that you rejected under the pretext of it containing "assumptions" as if those assumptions did not have good evidence supporting them. It is simply irrational to reject the unified and tested work of tens of thousands of scientists in favor of the blatantly incoherent and demonstrably false writings of the Bible. For example, the Bible says that birds were "created" on the fifth day, before land animals. That directly contradicts all scientific evidence. Serious scientifically literate Christians have been trying to harmonize the Bible with science for many years and have utterly failed. The errors begin with the very first verse! The earth was not created "in the beginning" when the "heavens" were "made." On the contrary, it formed about 9 billion years later. There is no "dome" holding up the "waters that are above." There are no "floodgates" in the "dome" that were opened when God flooded the earth. There was no "Adam and Eve" a mere few thousand years ago. And on and on it goes. You have chosen a path that denies all science. There's no two ways about it.

And speaking of "assumptions" - Look at the absolutely unfounded and irrational assumptions you make about the Bible being the word of God! You have no basis of any kind supporting such wild assumptions. They are demonstrably false but you believe them anyway. It's really quite ironic that you think yourself justified to reject science because we have to make some assumptions about some things.

And why do you avoid answering my questions? I asked if God "intelligently designed" the Bot fly that destroys the eyes of children. You dodged that question. After many exchanges like that with you, I find myself speaking "more plainly." I'll try to reign it in. I don't want to insult you. I want you to actually DEAL WITH REALITY for a change.



I examined your referenced link. It is as I said, all based on assumption. The first assumption in the chart is that there was dust. Where did that come from?

To the best of our knowledge, it came from the big bang. But that's totally irrelevant. I don't need to know where water "came from" to know that it freezes at 32 degrees. Once again, you are trying to find a way to dodge the scientific evidence. There is no "scientific controversy" about the fact that stars form (and are forming) by gravitational collapse of dust clouds.

And why are we talking about star formation? Because you are desperately looking for a place you can invoke God, since there is no observable phenomenon that can be tested in the lab that requires God as an explanation.

jce
09-07-2014, 05:48 PM
And speaking of "assumptions" - Look at the absolutely unfounded and irrational assumptions you make about the Bible being the word of God! You have no basis of any kind supporting such wild assumptions. They are demonstrably false but you believe them anyway. It's really quite ironic that you think yourself justified to reject science because we have to make some assumptions about some things.

I assume that the Bible is a revelation from God to those who believe it. Since I believe it then I can accept the Genesis account of creation. It is actually a more logical explanation than some of the literally goofy ideas set forth by highly educated men who are currently attempting to create a new theory, "The Something from Nothing Theory". Does that make any sense to you Richard? Personally, even if there were no Bible, I could examine the world around me and easily conclude that it was designed.


To the best of our knowledge, it came from the big bang. But that's totally irrelevant.

There, you have just made my point "The Big Bang, to the best of our knowledge". Another theory filled with unresolved problems. So many in fact that alternatives are being proposed in an effort to get rid of it.


There is no "scientific controversy" about the fact that stars form (and are forming) by gravitational collapse of dust clouds.

So it has suddenly gone from "No Theory" about star formation, to a FACT that stars are forming. This is what you call science? That statement was nothing more than a giant leap to a conclusion. Would it be too much to ask for at least a hypothesis first? Or, better yet, since you have implied star formation is a fact, why not publish it in a peer reviewed paper such as Nature and then go rent a tux to receive your Nobel Prize.


And why are we talking about star formation? Because you are desperately looking for a place you can invoke God, since there is no observable phenomenon that can be tested in the lab that requires God as an explanation.

We are discussing star formation as one example of an assumption and disguising it as a scientific fact. My question about where the the dust came from to form a star is relevant. Origins are relevant. If you are going to have a very first star, what are you going to make it from? Stardust right? So where does that leave you? From dust to dust, a very incomplete explanation but a perfect illustration of circular reasoning based on an assumption.

John

Rose
09-07-2014, 07:17 PM
Hello Rose

Who said stars were missing? That's something you've assumed. When stars exhaust their fuel they remain in existence as Red Giants, White Dwarfs, Neutron Stars, etc.

According to His Word, the stars will remain until God causes their cessation. He set the stars in place for signs and seasons and in due time, they will be folded up with the heaven (collapsed) like an old used garment.

It appears that we are actually observing a process of universal degeneration.

John

Hello John

When stars explode and go supernova, sometimes there is nothing left but galactic dust ... "The extremely luminous burst of radiation expels much or all of a star's material at a velocity of up to 30,000 km/s (10% of the speed of light), driving a shock wave into the surrounding interstellar medium." Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova)

Also if a star collapses into a black hole there is nothing left for a sign, when this happens these stars have ceased to exist.

Kind regards,
Rose

Silence
09-13-2014, 06:46 PM
I don't know if it has any relevance to star formation, but from 35:00 to 42:40, this video puts forth a new explanation for the present behavior of the star closest to us, the sun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA The explanation of how the temperature above the surface of the sun can be so much hotter than the sun's actual surface seems to make sense. How does a nuclear/gravitational model explain this phenomena? I found this explanation - http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/sun/the-puzzle-of-why-the-sun-is-hotter-away-from-its-surface/ which postulates the same plasma/magnetic mechanism, only they say the source of the energy is inside the sun, where Thornhill claims that the sun is being bombarded from the outside in, that 99.9 % of the matter in the universe is plasma, and the heat above the sun is generated when plasma flows from space encounter the sun's atmosphere.

The whole video is very interesting, but I can do without the dramatic music trying to make things more "exciting" and suspenseful. I asked about Mr. Thornhill's qualifications as a physicist a long time ago in post #3 on this thread - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2218-Interesting-Book&highlight=thunderbolts+gods, but never got a response. Are there any obvious holes in his theory?

(In case anyone reads post #4 of the thread, this link http://www.youtube.com/user/markinpo.../3/RnG8Pa0u-4U is going now to a different page than when I copied it originally. It originally went to a page that showed 3 solar/planetary/comet alignments that occurred at the same time that different major earthquakes occurred. The comet broke up on it's way to the sun and never made it to the 4th "alignment". I've also since been informed that the odds of three alignments and three earthquakes co-inciding are not as long as they would seem)

Silence
09-15-2014, 09:12 AM
Another question I should have asked - Would Mr. Thornhill's postulation about electromagnetsism being a far more dominant force in the universe than gravity, if correct, have any effect on our understanding about how stars could be formed?