Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    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

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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 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

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    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.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    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

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    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

    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
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    277
    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-...m-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/show...nderbolts+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)

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    277
    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?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •