A possible answer to the old/new earth.

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Scientists are not even able to make matter dense enough to form a star.

Gee, I wonder what could possibly be holding them back? All they have to do is assemble 1.989×1030 kilograms of hydrogen and helium . . .

 

[pat34lee]

Gee, I wonder what could possibly be holding them back? All they have to do is assemble 1.989×1030 kilograms of hydrogen and helium . . .

Even that is simplifying things to the point of absurdity. How would you contain the gases when in space they are free to move in all directions? As I said, gravity is too weak to bond gases together.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

(No extensive research prior to post, just a thought I had with the research that I have done)

If God created Adam as a fully grown man, and was older physically(assuming he created him as a fully grown man), despite being seconds old.

Could he have done the same with the universe?

Yes. God can do anything but the World is only 5987 years old:

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Even that is simplifying things to the point of absurdity. How would you contain the gases when in space they are free to move in all directions? As I said, gravity is too weak to bond gases together.

Strangely, the sun doesn't blow itself away from the pressure of the gases within. And even more strangely, calculations using Newton's laws of gravity show that the gravity of the gases is enough to hold it together after all.

What's more, even though stars take a few million years to form from interstellar gases, we can see every stage of that formation taking place around us in space.

You don't get to just make stuff up like "gravity is to weak to bond gases together". Gravity works just fine to do just that when there is a large enough mass of gases.

 

[cre8id]

You don't even notice that you are making assumptions from your observation of this one picture as you write "This shape required hundreds of thousands of years to form."

It didn't form. It was created. It is impossible to form stars in the near vacuum of space. Or planets, for that matter. Gravity is much too weak. Collisions in space would only drive particles apart.

I agree. It is odd, to me, that many "scientifically minded" Christians (who are also still supposed to believe in the supernatural and the possibilities of miracles... or there would be no resurrection, would there?) just "go along" with the present state of "scientific" thinking (which must rely only on naturalistic answers) only to be proven wrong within a few decades.

On the other hand, if indeed the cosmos ("the heavens and the earth") were created miraculously (just as indicated in the early chapters of Genesis and Exodus 20:11 ), then how is that inconsistent with other creation type miracles that Jesus did in the Gospels... making wine from water (where did the grapes grow and ripen and were gathered and smashed and fermented over time?), making thousands of ready-to-eat eat fish and baked loaves of bread almost instantaneously, creating new flesh and muscle instantly in healings, etc.?

Anything truely created, is created functional with some appearance of age! How old was Adam and Eve two minutes after they were created? They were not created as newborns! They were young adults or at least "teenagers"... old enough to reproduce.

Scientists are not even able to make matter dense enough to form a star.

Our sun, by naturalistic standards, is probably at least a third-generation star. Boy, that really fits well into the Genesis creation account, eh? Evos?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You're going to need to post a reference for that hogwash.

Basic science. Multiple observations. Common knowledge for anyone who keeps up with science.

 

[cre8id]

Basic science. Multiple observations. Common knowledge for anyone who keeps up with science.

Very briefly... still can't admit your bias, eh?

One little case (others are listed on page):
Doubts About Dates and Climate
CEH: Doubts About Dates and Climate

New findings cast doubt on scientists’ ability to be certain about their consensus views.

Radiometric Dating

Paper spotlights key flaw in widely used radioisotope dating technique (North Carolina State University). Physicists just noticed a factor not included in common radiometric dating techniques: differential mass diffusion. This means that different isotopes of parent or daughter elements can diffuse out of rocks at different rates.

An oversight in a radioisotope dating technique used to date everything from meteorites to geologic samples means that scientists have likely overestimated the age of many samples, according to new research from North Carolina State University.​

The problem does not apply to radiocarbon dating, but only to radioisotopes that give long ages in the millions of years, such as rubidium-strontium. The researchers also believe that corrections can be made to make published dates more accurate. But the press release reveals something suspect: scientists usually see scatter in the dates, so they tweak the data according to an arbitrary standard:

The data from radioisotope analysis tends to be somewhat scattered. So, researchers “normalize” the data by making a ratio with strontium-86, which is stable – meaning it doesn’t decay over time.

The wrinkle, however, is that ratios will change if the other isotopes are moving around. In fact, strontium-86 is more likely to diffuse out, because it’s smaller. This can lead to date inflation. Michael Irving at The New Atlas quotes one of the researchers: “If we don’t account for differential mass diffusion, we really have no idea how accurate a radioisotope date actually is.”​

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Very briefly... still can't admit your bias, eh?

One little case (others are listed on page):
Doubts About Dates and Climate
CEH: Doubts About Dates and Climate

New findings cast doubt on scientists’ ability to be certain about their consensus views.

Radiometric Dating

Paper spotlights key flaw in widely used radioisotope dating technique (North Carolina State University). Physicists just noticed a factor not included in common radiometric dating techniques: differential mass diffusion. This means that different isotopes of parent or daughter elements can diffuse out of rocks at different rates.

An oversight in a radioisotope dating technique used to date everything from meteorites to geologic samples means that scientists have likely overestimated the age of many samples, according to new research from North Carolina State University.​

The problem does not apply to radiocarbon dating, but only to radioisotopes that give long ages in the millions of years, such as rubidium-strontium. The researchers also believe that corrections can be made to make published dates more accurate. But the press release reveals something suspect: scientists usually see scatter in the dates, so they tweak the data according to an arbitrary standard:

The data from radioisotope analysis tends to be somewhat scattered. So, researchers “normalize” the data by making a ratio with strontium-86, which is stable – meaning it doesn’t decay over time.

The wrinkle, however, is that ratios will change if the other isotopes are moving around. In fact, strontium-86 is more likely to diffuse out, because it’s smaller. This can lead to date inflation. Michael Irving at The New Atlas quotes one of the researchers: “If we don’t account for differential mass diffusion, we really have no idea how accurate a radioisotope date actually is.”​

Ho hum. How much percentage adjustment do you find it reasonable to make on previous age determinations? Maybe 5 percent? This won't rescue the YEC dates. Its as if you discovered Bill Gates had a hundred thousand dollars less to his net worth than everyone had previously thought so surely he can't be a billionaire after all.

Your worthless adjustments are merely a footnote to the real science, regardless of whether they actually pan out or not.

 

[pat34lee]

Strangely, the sun doesn't blow itself away from the pressure of the gases within. And even more strangely, calculations using Newton's laws of gravity show that the gravity of the gases is enough to hold it together after all.

What's more, even though stars take a few million years to form from interstellar gases, we can see every stage of that formation taking place around us in space.

You don't get to just make stuff up like "gravity is to weak to bond gases together". Gravity works just fine to do just that when there is a large enough mass of gases.

Actually, you're making up many things here, not personally, but you are passing on theories as if they were real. Few million years, every stage, formation, gravity, large mass of gases. Every one theories, not facts or observations. We -think- stars go from stage a to b to c, etc.

Nebulae, for all their size are less dense than a rain cloud. How often do you find suns in this atmosphere?

Raise the temperature, and all you do is excite the gas to move more which moves the atoms further apart.

As for the calculations, the equations are here:
Star Formation

 

[pat34lee]

Our sun, by naturalistic standards, is probably at least a third-generation star. Boy, that really fits well into the Genesis creation account, eh? Evos?

True. Our sun was an original creation matched to this planet and solar system in order to keep us alive, give us power and nutrients without frying us, or freezing us or irradiating us. No other star could have been more perfectly made just for us. It gives us light in the daytime and the ability to see the stars at night.

 

[cre8id]

Ho hum. How much percentage adjustment do you find it reasonable to make on previous age determinations? Maybe 5 percent? This won't rescue the YEC dates. Its as if you discovered Bill Gates had a hundred thousand dollars less to his net worth than everyone had previously thought so surely he can't be a billionaire after all.

Your worthless adjustments are merely a footnote to the real science, regardless of whether they actually pan out or not.

Radiocarbon jurassic world havoc - creation.com

Diamonds: a creationists best friend - creation.com

Both Argon and Helium Diffusion Rates Indicate a Young Earth | The Institute for Creation Research

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Actually, you're making up many things here, not personally, but you are passing on theories as if they were real. Few million years, every stage, formation, gravity, large mass of gases. Every one theories, not facts or observations. We -think- stars go from stage a to b to c, etc.

Nebulae, for all their size are less dense than a rain cloud. How often do you find suns in this atmosphere?

Raise the temperature, and all you do is excite the gas to move more which moves the atoms further apart.

As for the calculations, the equations are here:
Star Formation

Ho hum, more mere denial of science. The objections to clouds condensing to form stars are based on neglecting the ability of magnetic alignments to encourage condensing and ignoring the fact that as stars condense they shed the heat that builds up and stops further condensation by radiation.

Observing every stage of the creation of stars is observation.

You people are like lawyers arguing for the innocence of clearly guilty parties. Yes, you can find new words to express the idea of innocence but that doesn't mean they are true.

 

[pat34lee]

Ho hum, more mere denial of science.

Only pseudo-science masquerading as the real thing.

Observing every stage of the creation of stars is observation.

Of course, and it doesn't happen. Remember, they're hidden in nebulae.

You people are like lawyers arguing for the innocence of clearly guilty parties. Yes, you can find new words to express the idea of innocence but that doesn't mean they are true.

If there were as little evidence for murder as there is for evolution or star formation, I would expect to not only get acquitted, but apologies from the DA.

 

[SkyWriting]

(No extensive research prior to post, just a thought I had with the research that I have done)

If God created Adam as a fully grown man, and was older physically(assuming he created him as a fully grown man), despite being seconds old.

Could he have done the same with the universe?

Sure. That may have happened.
Though He spread earth creation over 3 days
and added the sun on day 4. Life on day 5.
Or all in one instant. Or different than the story.

 

[Left]

I believe Aquinas wrote that the Earth might have always existed, like the footprint of the Creator, but that God set things into motion.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Only pseudo-science masquerading as the real thing.



Of course, and it doesn't happen. Remember, they're hidden in nebulae.

Here, check out the observations noted in this discussion:

Star Formation

Infrared observations cut through the nebulae.

 

[pat34lee]

Here, check out the observations noted in this discussion:
Star Formation

From that page:

"How do we know this is happening if it takes so long and is hidden from view in dark clouds? Most of these cloud cores have IR sources, evidence of energy from collapsing protostars (potential energy converted to kinetic energy). Also, where we do find young stars (see below) we find them surrounded by clouds of gas, the leftover dark molecular cloud. And they occur in clusters, groups of stars that form from the same cloud core."

They see one thing (IR sources) here and one thing (stars surrounded by gas, new being a judgment call) there and imagine that they are related, rather than two wildly different things.

Look closely at any article or paper dealing with evolution or long ages. They try to gloss over how much is conjecture and speculation, so you have to watch how they parse words like lawyers. Of course, in anything they put out for children and laymen, they just assert their theories as facts. That is how they brainwash the young and gullible.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

From that page:

"How do we know this is happening if it takes so long and is hidden from view in dark clouds? Most of these cloud cores have IR sources, evidence of energy from collapsing protostars (potential energy converted to kinetic energy). Also, where we do find young stars (see below) we find them surrounded by clouds of gas, the leftover dark molecular cloud. And they occur in clusters, groups of stars that form from the same cloud core."

They see one thing (IR sources) here and one thing (stars surrounded by gas, new being a judgment call) there and imagine that they are related, rather than two wildly different things.

Look closely at any article or paper dealing with evolution or long ages. They try to gloss over how much is conjecture and speculation, so you have to watch how they parse words like lawyers. Of course, in anything they put out for children and they just assert their theories as facts. That is how they brainwash the young and gullible.

And you have no real reason to doubt that these phenomenon are occurring and forming stars except for your religious opposition to the findings of science.

 

[pat34lee]

And you have no real reason to doubt that these phenomenon are occurring and forming stars except for your religious opposition to the findings of science.

Except, as shown, that it is impossible. Don't forget that part.

 

[cre8id]

And you have no real reason to doubt that these phenomenon are occurring and forming stars except for your religious opposition to the findings of science.

I have no real reason to believe the naturalistic based star formation "just so" story either.
Have Population III stars finally been discovered? - CMI Mobile