Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    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/2014/0...star-formation

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    "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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    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.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View 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
    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 of the Thorns and Fangs thread 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 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
    • 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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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?"



    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.

    • 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. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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 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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS AND YOU SHOWED NO UNDERSTANDING AND THEN QUIT THE CONVERSATION!
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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?

    Last edited by David M; 08-21-2014 at 11:01 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564

    Jeans Mass flawed

    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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    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.
    • 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

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M
    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”
    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.
    • 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

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Good morning David,

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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, escape velocity is the speed at which the kinetic energy plus the 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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] In a quantity of gas, the average velocity of a molecule is determined by temperature, but the velocity of individual molecules varies continuously as they collide with one another, gaining and losing kinetic energy. The variation in kinetic energy among the molecules is described by the Maxwell distribution.

    Individual molecules in the high tail of the distribution may reach escape velocity, at a level in the atmosphere where the mean free path is comparable to thescale 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 escapes from an atmosphere more easily than does carbon dioxide.
    You could have answered this question yourself in half a minute if you were actually interested in learning science.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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. This is, of course, a topic for another thread. I'm commenting here merely because you brought it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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,



    Richard
    • 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

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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,

    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.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


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
  •