Star Formation and why evolution is not true

True_Blue said:

First, I'm not interested in reading or responding to invective, or in rebuttals regarding tiny details.

Click to expand...

Very important ground rule that. Because it eliminates the need for science in the discussion. Science deals in details. And we all know who else lives in the details....

So, that's understood.

True_Blue said:

We need to keep the big picture in mind. Second, I'm interested in your independent thought and your critical thinking, not your YouTube videos, hyperlinks,

Click to expand...

OK, no links. But..just a sec...

True_Blue said:

claim
[link]
[link]
cosmology,

Click to expand...

HEY! You broke Rule #2 in the OP! If you aren't interested in OTHER PEOPLE'S links why do you post your own?

Did you forget to read Luke 6:31?

Here's a reminder:
Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

(Note, I didn't provide a link, however this is, technically, a "detail" and avoids the overall "big picture").

Hmmm.

True_Blue said:

The atheists are driven by the desire to find naturalistic processes to explain their existence.

Click to expand...

Actually science only works when all the factors are explicable and observable by all objective observers. The effects of any given factor have to be consistent. So Science is, by necessity, silent on "God".

The God hypothesis, if it is valid, must conform to this or science is rendered useless with its inclusion.

NOTE: (and as a lawyer I'm sure you'll appreciate the subtlety here) this says nothing about God's reality. Science does NOT say God does not exist. That is logically unreasonable since it is a universal negative.

Instead science functions relying only on naturalistic factors. No supernatural factors allowed.

or immerse himself in science and critically analyze it and learn for himself why the atheists are wrong from a scientific perspective. The third path is very hard

Click to expand...

Education is not easy.

, but ultimately very, very fulfilling.

Click to expand...

I think you should definitely go for this. It sounds like it could be very interesting. That way, when you talk to scientists you don't have to avoid the science. AND you can actually deal with the details, which are the bread and butter of science.

I highly recommend an education in science before preaching against science. I think it will do you some real good. And who knows, maybe you'll come up with something that will challenge the scientists...assuming there is actually a reason to assume science is inherently flawed.

The first path takes no thought at all, and that's what most Christians do.

Click to expand...

I find it ironic you are saying this to Maneki. They guy is a christian and a scientist! I bet he's got more science under his belt than you and he's probably read more scientific papers in a single given month than you have in your entire life. And yet he's still a Christian! What kind of deviltry is at work here???

From my perspective, there's nothing driving the second path except peer pressure, and peer pressures is a poor reason to do or believe in something.

Click to expand...

If you don't understand the science then surely you would think that people who do are merely responding to "peer pressure". That's because you don't respect the scientists. You hold them in such low esteem that you think your demonstrated ignorance of the appropriate fields trumps their learnings. And that is, in my world, the absolute height of disrespect.

I find it to be the most offensive aspect of Creationism by and large.

True_Blue said:

The atheists are driven by the desire to find naturalistic processes to explain their existence. Christians have a Bible that says God created the universe in six days [time measured at Earth's perspective], and have a genealogy that puts the date of creation at less than 10,000 years. The atheists that currently dominate universities have created an aura that is admittedly difficult to penetrate. A Christian who takes eighth-grade biology and earth science is taught that the universe is X-billion years old and that life evolved by evolution is faced with choices: he must stick their head in the sand, accept the atheist teaching about science as fact, or immerse himself in science and critically analyze it and learn for himself why the atheists are wrong from a scientific perspective. The third path is very hard, but ultimately very, very fulfilling. The second path is somewhat easy, but it usually involves trying to re-interpret plain Biblical language, which takes less effort than critically analyzing the scientific works of thousands of atheist professors. The first path takes no thought at all, and that's what most Christians do. From my perspective, there's nothing driving the second path except peer pressure, and peer pressures is a poor reason to do or believe in something.

Click to expand...

What about all those christians (including myself) that know the earth is 4.6 billion years old and that evolution does and has occurred? What does that make us?

Why is it that you think you have a monopoly on the truth just because you take genesis literally? Taking genesis literally is only an interpretation.....which is not supported by the world/universe that God created.

True_Blue said:

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

Click to expand...

What did my post have to do with taking polls? Did you read it?

How have I used other people as a crutch?

True_Blue said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's nice. From now on, I'm going to use the phrase "Out of the True-Blue" to describe the origin of any statistical/probabilistic analysis or argument which is devoid of a basis in reality...

Making up your own definitions for words is fun, up until about the first grade.

True_Blue said:

ChordatesLegacy, I was asking the question because I was inviting you to think for yourself.

Click to expand...

Yeah ChordatesLegacy, think for yourself and follow what the magic book says. It is only by adhering yourself to the magic book that you can 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.

Click to expand...

Earth is not in a vacuum. Space in the other hand, is a near perfect vacuum. In this vacuum, h2 particles accrete because of gravity. The density of the matter equals the gravitational force of said matter. The more matter, the higher the accretion.

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.

Click to expand...

You are wrong because you fail to account the fact that earth is not in a vacuum. In a vacuum, accretion is completly plausible. There was an expirement done here on earth where they placed particles inside a vacuum to see how they would behave. and wouldnt you know it, they just happend to cling on to each other by magic. But it wasnt magic, it was gravity doing what it does, attracting bodies of mass to each other.

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?

Click to expand...

No sir, those classes are there to explain the phenomena with the principles which we know exist. We dont take magic as an answer. We study to try to comprehend it so that we may come closer to fully understanding our cosmos. If a explanations fails, it does so because it wasnt supported by the data. With the new data, a new explanation is made, and then it has to be held accountable by the data.

True_Blue said:

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.

Click to expand...

Can you please point me to where the "mean density" term is in the Gravitation equation?

Let me regurgitate it here:

F = Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup]

I missed the "density" term in there.

Thanks in advance!

True_Blue said:

Christians have a Bible that says God created the universe in six days [time measured at Earth's perspective], and have a genealogy that puts the date of creation at less than 10,000 years.

Click to expand...

Actually, you have two conflicting genealogies, both tracing Jesus from father to son, but involving different people. They can't even agree on something as simple as who Joseph's father was -- Luke 3 says Joseph's father was Heli, while Matthew 1 says Joseph's father was Jacob.

A Christian who takes eighth-grade biology and earth science is taught that the universe is X-billion years old and that life evolved by evolution is faced with choices:

Click to expand...

Actually, my eighth-grade science teacher taught us "creation science," where we learned blatant falsehoods like this one: Because Eve was created out of Adam's rib, men have one fewer rib than women. I was a YEC until my twenties, when I realized that creationism doesn't explain the world around us, but all the science that it demonizes does.

True_Blue said:

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.

Click to expand...

You do realize that that is about five times the size of the entire Milky Way Galaxy, right?

True_Blue said:

Ok, Thaumaturgy, I've put some thought into your post. I haven't reached any conclusions yet, but I want to talk through the issue with you. The gravity equation you posted applies to every single little particle in the entire gas cloud. The result is that the gas cloud becomes gravitationally bound. The degree to which they are gravitationally bound, whether tightly or loosely, depends on the temperature (kinetic energy) and other repulsive forces. Gas clouds heat up as they collapse gravitationally. Thus, the gas cloud will reach an equilibrium. Since we know that gravity is an exceptionally weak force compared to other forces, it stands to reason that the equilibrium will result in widely dispersed gas clouds. That is in fact what we observed--ChordatesLegacy's gas cloud is exceptionally dilute. The observational evidence indicates that my point is accurate.

For the force of gravity to break that equilibrium, the gravitational force would have to be exceptionally strong. That's where my post on density comes into play. A sufficiently powerful gravitational force to contract the gas cloud would have to have very high density, far higher than the earth. I think a supermassive black hole fits the bill. However, a supermassive black hole is not a good candidate for star formation. Our own sun is nowhere near such a thing.

When I read the scientific journals on gas clouds and star formation, it's clear that they are really reaching, and relying on a lot of exotic improbable processes. Here's an article I found interesting, with its conclusions near the end.

Click to expand...

OK; I do not have much time but I shall give a quick overview.

As a child I thought that all the mass in spiral galaxies was in the arms, this seemed to make since because that is where all the stars are, or at least the bright one. This is not true; matter is uniformly spread through these spiral galaxies. The question is why, Well the Milky Way (our galaxy) is a spiral and rotates, with the rotation being faster towards the centre, and where our solar system is located the time of rotation is approximately 200 million years.



The reason all the bright stars are in the arms seems to be connected to Density Wave Theory; which basically states that the spiral arm structure is a wave that moves through the disk causing the stars and gas to clump together along the wave front (i.e. Density Wave). The density wave seems to have a slower rotation than the galaxy, therefore stars form at the front of the wave, most of which have short lives (i.e. large stars do not live long before going supernova, sometimes a couple of million years), this leads to the dark areas between the wave fronts of spiral arms. The material from the Supernova explosions enrich the dust clouds in heavy elements, which are then incorporated into new stars and planets the next time a wave front passes through that region of the Milky Way.

LINK


Our own sun is quite rich in heavy elements, has is the earth, so much so, it looks as if our solar system is made from material that has probably been through two or three star forming cycles.




True Blue;

For once you are using science, but you are only using the bits that suits your position, gravity by itself may be two weak in many cases to collapse dust clouds, but star formation is not governed by gravity along, it is this pressure wave front that induces dust clouds to collapse.

For anyone who thinks True Blue is on to something please read the following, with a link to the full paper.


True Blue’s rational that gravity cannot collapse dust cloud and form stars, therefore creationists must be right; is completely wrong with respect to creationists must be right. However gravity by itself would struggle to collapse dust clouds, but it is not gravity that is the main source of dust cloud collapse and stars formation it is DENSITY WAVE induced.


LINK

Star formation rates, efficiencies and initial mass functions​

in spiral galaxies



Abstract.

True_Blue said:

The degree to which they are gravitationally bound, whether tightly or loosely, depends on the temperature (kinetic energy) and other repulsive forces. Gas clouds heat up as they collapse gravitationally. Thus, the gas cloud will reach an equilibrium.

Click to expand...

That's quite a hasty conclusion! You forgot to mention that the gravitationnal forces also increase as the gas cloud reduces in size, since the gravitational forces depend on the distance (remember the r² ?).

True_Blue said:

Since we know that gravity is an exceptionally weak force compared to other forces, it stands to reason that the equilibrium will result in widely dispersed gas clouds. That is in fact what we observed--ChordatesLegacy's gas cloud is exceptionally dilute. The observational evidence indicates that my point is accurate.

For the force of gravity to break that equilibrium, the gravitational force would have to be exceptionally strong.

Click to expand...

Yes, gravity is very weak when examined compared to other forces BUT gravity is a cumulative force and becomes very great indeed when sufficient mass is present.

Oliver said:

That's quite a hasty conclusion! You forgot to mention that the gravitationnal forces also increase as the gas cloud reduces in size, since the gravitational forces depend on the distance (remember the r² ?).

Click to expand...

Plus, I think that the cloud has to become really quite dense for temperature effects to start to come into play. In fact, temperature only really plays a part when a star is close to either becoming a brown dwarf or igniting into a main sequence star. At which point it is incredibly dense already.