Star Formation and why evolution is not true

[Pwnzerfaust]

Note the gravitational pattern in this photo and compare it to the "stellar nursery" in the photo linked above.

That's a spiral galaxy, if I'm not mistaken. It's not a forming star.

Stars are formed in mind-bogglingly large nebulae, which, over millions or even tens of millions of years, gradually collapse in on themselves. When the pressure from the condensing hydrogen gets high enough, nuclear fusion begins in the core, and a star is born.

This description is highly simplified, of course, because I'm not an astrophysicist. I'm going to be studying engineering, not how stars are formed, but I have a rudimentary understanding from reading and such on my own.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

By the way, stop referring to "evolution" as "everything my book disagrees with". Evolution is one thing. Stellar formation is another. Abiogenesis is yet another. The Big Bang is, again, another thing. Using one word to include them all is misleading and incorrect.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

True Blue:

Your level of knowledge is at best limited, not only that, you take points from peoples research completely and utterly out of context, and none of these researchers are advocating creationism or anything close to creationism.

Intergalactic star formation: Shown above is NGC 5291, a giant collisional ring of gas weighting about 30 billion times the mass of our Sun. It is the second most massive neutral gas structure in the southern hemisphere. The image is a combination of far ultraviolet from stars (blue channel), ionized gas in the optical (green channel), hot dust in the mid-infrared (red channel) and atomic gas feeding star formation (yellow contours). The tiny bright regions along the neutral gas structure are intergalactic star forming regions. The diameter of the ring is nearly 600,000 light-years. (Credit: M. Boquien (University of Massachusetts), P.-A. Duc (National Center for Scientific Research, France), GALEX, European Southern Observatory, Spitzer and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory

LINK

 

[rhaegar]

There are some very good reason why we dont see star formation as seen in the images you posted. One is that the images posted dont show any star formation; the first appears to be an artist's impression of a black hole and its accretion disk, while the second is that of a galaxy.
And we do see star formation. The wiki page for protoplanetary disk has images of exactly what you're looking for.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

 

[plindboe]

Creation/evolution is about the presence or absence of intent and purpose, not the presence or absence of change.

If this sentence were true, there would exist no such a thing as theistic evolutionists. They see intent and purpose, but also accept evolution. In other words, your statement is easily disproved by reality.

Peter

 

[True_Blue]

True Blue:

Your level of knowledge is at best limited, not only that, you take points from peoples research completely and utterly out of context, and none of these researchers are advocating creationism or anything close to creationism.

Intergalactic star formation: Shown above is NGC 5291, a giant collisional ring of gas weighting about 30 billion times the mass of our Sun. It is the second most massive neutral gas structure in the southern hemisphere. The image is a combination of far ultraviolet from stars (blue channel), ionized gas in the optical (green channel), hot dust in the mid-infrared (red channel) and atomic gas feeding star formation (yellow contours). The tiny bright regions along the neutral gas structure are intergalactic star forming regions. The diameter of the ring is nearly 600,000 light-years. (Credit: M. Boquien (University of Massachusetts), P.-A. Duc (National Center for Scientific Research, France), GALEX, European Southern Observatory, Spitzer and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory

LINK

So, CL, what is the density of this structure? Is that density sufficient to collapse the structure by gravity?

 

[Washington]

This thread seeks to show that the atheist model of evolution is incorrect by going back to first principles to challenge atheist notions of star formation. . . . .

*snip*​

​

. . . . and is a more coherent rationale for star formation than the existing theories.

Now THAT is simply sad.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

So, CL, what is the density of this structure? Is that density sufficient to collapse the structure by gravity?

True Blue:

What you want is a full description of star formation and the processes that lead to such events.

Simply put you need to spend 3-6 years studying physics, planetary science and astronomy, perhaps then you will be able to put together a coherent argument.

One question.

Of all the authors that you have quoted in the OP, how many support creationist ideas.

I bet it is less than one.


PS contact the authors if you want more specific data on their article, i.e. density etc.

 

[UncleHermit]

I'm using the word "evolution" to refer to the summation of atheistic sequence of events from the Big Bang to the origin of mankind.

Just a suggestion: if you don't want to deal with rebuttals of tiny details, as you said in the OP, it would be best to use words the same way everyone else does. Making up your own definitions for words just leads to confusion.

You should also know that the "atheistic sequence of events" is also largely accepted by scientists who are not atheists.

 

[Molal]

Why is it that creationists conflate atheism with science?

 

[Blayz]

Why is it that creationists conflate atheism with science?

hubris, ignorance and righteous indignation.

 

[TheManeki]

This thread seeks to show that the atheist model of evolution is incorrect by going back to first principles to challenge atheist notions of star formation.

Wow. First sentence and we're already in rocky territory. Evolution is not atheistic. Remember how you were told in your last thread that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis? Evolution also has nothing to do with star formation. If you're looking to disprove evolution, you're going after the wrong target.

I would like to start off with some ground rules. First, I'm not interested in reading or responding to invective,

Does people pointing out your ignorance of science count as invective, now?

or in rebuttals regarding tiny details.

In your last thread, it seemed that "tiny details" were anything that contradicted your assumptions.

Second, I'm interested in your independent thought and your critical thinking, not your YouTube videos, hyperlinks, degrees, etc.

Why are you so interested in excluding evidence from scientists outside this thread who might specialize in this field?

Ideas need to stand or fail on their own merit.

Then why are you so quick to dismiss criticisms of your ideas, and why do you not wish to have your ideas exposed to references of outside sources?

I already know that organizations of atheist scientists aren't going to agree with me.

Scientists (not to mention people in general), theistic or atheistic, don't hold much for ideas that don't explain reality. Didn't the reactions to your two threads about abiogenesis in two different forums here illustrate that?

Third, the purpose of this post is to convince you to give Christianity a second look, not get my ideas published. I care more about your souls than anything else.

Forcing people to accept a Biblical interpretation that flies in the face of reality as a key tenet of Christianity is a sure-fire way to drive people away from Christianity. St. Augustine realized this long ago, when he wrote

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that [a non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Why is it that creationists conflate atheism with science?

Atheism is more abstract than science and therefore much easier to dismiss with sophistry and hand-waving.

 

[True_Blue]

If this sentence were true, there would exist no such a thing as theistic evolutionists. They see intent and purpose, but also accept evolution. In other words, your statement is easily disproved by reality.

Peter

Theistic evolutionism is not a coherent philosophy that can stand on its own, just an attempt to compromise.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Theistic evolutionism is not a coherent philosophy that can stand on its own, just an attempt to compromise.

I suppose if anyone knows incoherent philosophy, it's you.

 

[Vene]

Theistic evolutionism is not a coherent philosophy that can stand on its own, just an attempt to compromise.

Dr. Francis Collins disagrees.

 

[TheManeki]

Theistic evolutionism is not a coherent philosophy that can stand on its own, just an attempt to compromise.

And what exactly makes it incoherent to you?

 

[True_Blue]

True Blue:

What you want is a full description of star formation and the processes that lead to such events.

Simply put you need to spend 3-6 years studying physics, planetary science and astronomy, perhaps then you will be able to put together a coherent argument.

One question.

Of all the authors that you have quoted in the OP, how many support creationist ideas.

I bet it is less than one.

PS contact the authors if you want more specific data on their article, i.e. density etc.

ChordatesLegacy, I was asking the question because I was inviting you to think for yourself. I went ahead and calculated the density of the gas cloud that you posted, assuming it was 600k*100k*100k lightyears in dimension. That results in a mean density of 1.17*10^-29 g/cm^3. By comparison, the earth has a density of 5.52 g/cm^3. I don't know what density is required to draw that gas in form a star, but it certainly is a lot higher tha 5.52 g/cm^3. The gravity of our own planet is insufficient even to keep H2 molecules with our atmosphere, let alone hyper-compress them to form a star. Do you see how utterly impossible the atheist theories of star formation are? I'm using general principles to prove my point, and if the atheist theory is going to have any amount of coherency, an informed scientist can explain to me in general principles why I'm wrong. Why would anyone invest years of their life taking classes on an esoteric topic if at the end of the day the theories taught violate basic principles? During the dark ages, people invested years of their life studying Aristotle, who turned out to have been wrong on almost everything. I'm seeing history repeat itself.

 

[True_Blue]

Just a suggestion: if you don't want to deal with rebuttals of tiny details, as you said in the OP, it would be best to use words the same way everyone else does. Making up your own definitions for words just leads to confusion.

You should also know that the "atheistic sequence of events" is also largely accepted by scientists who are not atheists.

Taking polls is not a path to truth. I'm inviting you to think for yourself, not use other people as a crutch.

 

[True_Blue]

Then why are you so quick to dismiss criticisms of your ideas, and why do you not wish to have your ideas exposed to references of outside sources?

If you can read an outside source, summarize its ideas, and show using principles-based reasoning that my ideas are wrong, then please do so. I'm interested in talking about ideas, and I'm most interesting in getting you guys to think for yourself and independently analyze the atheist theories for veracity.