Star Formation and why evolution is not true

[plindboe]

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

Sure, it makes it easier for you to simply lump everything into two categories and ignore the multitude of other categories out there in the world, but you only end up fooling yourself. Theistic evolutionists exist, and they probably outnumber both creationists and atheistic evolutionists, so they're are not a group to simply ignore. You were wrong, accept it, learn from it, and move on.

Peter

 

[mpok1519]

I think I'll stick with what the Astronomy professor says....

 

[pgp_protector]

With some of the people "defending" the "faith" no wonder Christians have a bad rap

 

[True_Blue]

I think I'll stick with what the Astronomy professor says....

Do you have a particular reason for subsuming your independent thought underneath your professor?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Do you have a particular reason for subsuming your independent thought underneath your professor?

Yeah, by golly, why should you trust someone who an education when you could trust someone like True_Blue here who has no idea what he is talking about?

Don't bother trying to learn, be brainwashed like a good YEC.

 

[True_Blue]

Yeah, by golly, why should you trust someone who an education when you could trust someone like True_Blue here who has no idea what he is talking about?

Don't bother trying to learn, be brainwashed like a good YEC.

So far, I've not seen a good explanation for star formation on this thread. The authorities out there that I've read say it remains a mystery. You're talking a lot of smack, but you're not "bringing it."

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So far, I've not seen a good explanation for star formation on this thread. The authorities out there that I've read say it remains a mystery. You're talking a lot of smack, but you're not "bringing it."

Okay, please post your authorities for us to see, I would be interested to find out who these people are.

I have read a bit on cosmology, and it seems that they have a pretty good idea how stars like our sun form. And all evidence from God's creation seems to back them up.

I would be fascinated to see why your authorities seem to be so clueless and what evidence they provide that the current theories are all wrong.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So far, I've not seen a good explanation for star formation on this thread. The authorities out there that I've read say it remains a mystery. You're talking a lot of smack, but you're not "bringing it."

Oh and since I forgot to add this in the last post...

Do you have a particular reason for subsuming your independent thought underneath your authorities?

Please answer this, it would only be fitting since you asked this of someone else, you know that whole do unto others thing...

 

[True_Blue]

Oh and since I forgot to add this in the last post...

Do you have a particular reason for subsuming your independent thought underneath your authorities?

Please answer this, it would only be fitting since you asked this of someone else, you know that whole do unto others thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes

If a person points out that the emperor has no clothes, he is going against the emperor, the highest authority in that society. Appeal to authority is not a good methodology for knowing the truth or debating the truth with others.

If you want to appeal to authority, use the Bible. That is the authority that I will bend my beliefs and my will to.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes

If a person points out that the emperor has no clothes, he is going against the emperor, the highest authority in that society. Appeal to authority is not a good methodology for knowing the truth or debating the truth with others.

If you want to appeal to authority, use the Bible. That is the authority that I will bend my beliefs and my will to.

I was calling you for doing exactly what you felt the person you asked this question of was doing, appealing to authorities., maybe you forgot, let me quote you again...

The authorities out there that I've read say it remains a mystery. You're talking a lot of smack, but you're not "bringing it."

So almost directly quote you again...

"Do you have a particular reason for subsuming your independent thought underneath your authorities?"

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Here is an interesting webpage on the workings of spiral arms. I like the web page because it has nice-sounding phrases like the following:

"quote]

I have read the article linked above, quite honestly it is extremly poor. I shall point a few of the worst point to you in time.

 

[True_Blue]

Here is an interesting webpage on the workings of spiral arms. I like the web page because it has nice-sounding phrases like the following:

"quote]

I have read the article linked above, quite honestly it is extremly poor. I shall point a few of the worst point to you in time.

No need--I will take your word for it. The spiral arm theory of star formation is interesting, though at the moment I don't understand it.

 

[theresarose]

Please lead me to this good science that goes against evolution. Personally it is hard for me to believe that God's day is the same 24 hours has our day. After all who created the day? I believe God created evolution knowing we would be curious about where we came from and as tools to learn how to help those who are suffering.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Here is an interesting webpage on the workings of spiral arms. I like the web page because it has nice-sounding phrases like the following:

Bad mistakes by the Author

Now, think of a galaxy spiral arm as a very large and massive "open cluster" of stars.

Here he bases a argument on spiral arms being a large open cluster, this is completely wrong. As shown below.

OPEN CLUSTER



SPIRAL GALEXY

If we consider a galaxy to primarily have two (symmetric) main spiral arms, it seems reasonable to estimate that the total mass of each of those arms is around 1/10 of the mass of the entire galaxy (leaving 80% of the mass as being in the Core).

Again a bad flaw in his thinking; mass is uniformly spread throughout spiral galaxies, what makes the spiral arms different is that they contain a much large proportion of young stars.

I would like to go on, but I am not going to waste my time critiquing the work of someone who writes the following crap.


C Johnson, Pastor
A Christ Walk Church Christian and physicist
Physics Degree from University of Chicago

For example: This would result in the descendents of Adam and Eve multiplying and going forth across the Earth, at the same time that similar-appearing "people-animals" were also doing the same. Doesn't it seem obvious that the two groups would eventually inter-marry? One parent would have a Soul and the other would not. Would the children have Souls? I don't know, but I'd guess not. By the time of Noah, how many "pure" descendants of Adam and Eve might there be? Maybe relatively few, if a lot of inter-marrying had occurred in previous generations. (The Bible is silent on these sorts of details). It seems to me that this represents a very good reason why most "people" of Noah's time were corrupt and bad, they weren't actually people at all! And it seems to me to present a strong reason why the Flood was necessary, such that Noah and his group (each direct descendants from Adam and Eve) would be the only survivors. Humans had shown that they could not distinguish between actual people (with Souls) and those that looked like people but did not have Souls, so God provided the Flood.


Creationist are full of sh**

 

[True_Blue]

Please lead me to this good science that goes against evolution. Personally it is hard for me to believe that God's day is the same 24 hours has our day. After all who created the day? I believe God created evolution knowing we would be curious about where we came from and as tools to learn how to help those who are suffering.

I recommend you read Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, by Russell Humphreys, available here. Until dispoven, I find his theory, and more importantly, the assumptions underlying his theory to be the most credible.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

I recommend you read Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, by Russell Humphreys, available here. Until dispoven, I find his theory, and more importantly, the assumptions underlying his theory to be the most credible.

Oh boy, is that the whole "light used to be faster" nonsense?

 

[True_Blue]

Bad mistakes by the Author

Now, think of a galaxy spiral arm as a very large and massive "open cluster" of stars.

Here he bases a argument on spiral arms being a large open cluster, this is completely wrong. As shown below.

OPEN CLUSTER



SPIRAL GALEXY

If we consider a galaxy to primarily have two (symmetric) main spiral arms, it seems reasonable to estimate that the total mass of each of those arms is around 1/10 of the mass of the entire galaxy (leaving 80% of the mass as being in the Core).

Again a bad flaw in his thinking; mass is uniformly spread throughout spiral galaxies, what makes the spiral arms different is that they contain a much large proportion of young stars.

I would like to go on, but I am not going to waste my time critiquing the work of someone who writes the following crap.


C Johnson, Pastor
A Christ Walk Church Christian and physicist
Physics Degree from University of Chicago

For example: This would result in the descendents of Adam and Eve multiplying and going forth across the Earth, at the same time that similar-appearing "people-animals" were also doing the same. Doesn't it seem obvious that the two groups would eventually inter-marry? One parent would have a Soul and the other would not. Would the children have Souls? I don't know, but I'd guess not. By the time of Noah, how many "pure" descendants of Adam and Eve might there be? Maybe relatively few, if a lot of inter-marrying had occurred in previous generations. (The Bible is silent on these sorts of details). It seems to me that this represents a very good reason why most "people" of Noah's time were corrupt and bad, they weren't actually people at all! And it seems to me to present a strong reason why the Flood was necessary, such that Noah and his group (each direct descendants from Adam and Eve) would be the only survivors. Humans had shown that they could not distinguish between actual people (with Souls) and those that looked like people but did not have Souls, so God provided the Flood.

Creationist are full of sh**

ChordatesLegacy, besides being uninterested in invective, I'm a little puzzled about the paragraph about Adam and Eve above. It does indeed look like pure rubbish.

When I look at pictures of spiral arms, it sure looks to me like there is more mass in the spiral arms than in intervening space, just as there is more water vapor in the spiral arms of hurricanes. Is the opposite conclusion--that the mass is uniform--based a priori on the assumption that the spiral arms contain more "young" stars. Infering mass from EM spectrum signals in the absence of calibration requires assumptions, and those assumptions must be tested.

Anyways, do you have a nice, elegant explanation for how spiral arms compress gas clouds?

[The Bible says God destroyed mankind in part because they were interbreeding with demons, not other people, creating the Nephilim (giants) that form the basis of Greek and other mythologies--Hercules, for example. It seems that demons who commit the crime of interfering with humans too closely (possession, interbreeding, etc), are cast into the abyss. That's why the legion of demons Jesus encountered was so incredibly terrified when Jesus approached. They were scared that Jesus would cast them into the abyss for possessing the man. He had mercy on the demons and cast them into a herd of pigs instead. The paragraph above, which seems very out-of-place in this discussion, looks like a feeble and misguided attempt to combine evolution with the Bible.]

 

[True_Blue]

Oh boy, is that the whole "light used to be faster" nonsense?

There is no confirmed evidence that light used to be faster. I would not personally believe such a thing unless presented with really compelling evidence. The premise of the book, which I recommend you read, is gravitational time dilation. He adds in a few other relativistic effects, but those effects are unnecessary to the central premise. If you assume the universe has a geographic center, an edge, and that the earth is near the roughly approximate center, then time throughout the universe depends on the observer's position in the gravity well. The only real difference between the Big Bang Theory and this book are the simple, basic assumptions used. I believe Humphreys' assumptions make more common sense and are more simple and intuitive than the assumptions of the atheist cosmologists. But you really do need to read a book to get a sense of Humphreys' credibility.

 

[mpok1519]

I recommend you read Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, by Russell Humphreys, available here. Until dispoven, I find his theory, and more importantly, the assumptions underlying his theory to be the most credible.

how old does he think the universe is?

but its also good to expan your horizons and try to read as much as possible within a field of study; with so many theories, theyre all very interesting, and each a gem to explore.

 

[pgp_protector]

My little one can understand these videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk