God never said how big the created stars were..?

[dad]

Who's talking about scripture? That's for another forum.

When people say it is written on a Christian forum, you know what it refers to.

As for Scripture and the topic, it is about how Scripture never said how big stars are.

 

[dad]

This is why your opinions and beliefs are irrelevant.
Because you hold the position that if reality disagrees with your religious beliefs, then you'll assume that reality is wrong.

There's no point in trying to reason with you, until you understand how utterly nonsensical that is.

It is the beliefs of science that are being looked at. I understand how you can't defend them. Not interested in your religion, thanks.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

When people say it is written on a Christian forum, you know what it refers to.

As for Scripture and the topic, it is about how Scripture never said how big stars are.

According to @AV1611VET 's rules:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

we can go with Science!!!

lol!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

It is the beliefs of science that are being looked at. I understand how you can't defend them. Not interested in your religion, thanks.

and you acknowledge that a religious position is bad then? Nice admission. Too bad Science is nothing like you wish it were...

 

[dad]

Although you say that I have made a valid point, you appear to have missed it. What I said was that if stars were sub-atomic in size they would not be able to generate enough energy to be seen from a distance of even a million kilometres. How do you think that stars generate energy? How far away do you think that they really are?

Since we do not know how energy permeates space and time far from the solar system, your point is moot. As for your idea of what stars are and how they work, sorry, that is just beliefs. I do not believe it.

This is a non sequitur. Astronomers had identified these elements in stars using ground-based telescopes long before the space station, or even the first Sputnik, was launched. As long ago as the 1920s astronomers, in particular Meghnad Saha (1893-1956), had begun to work out the relationships between the ionisation and excitation states of atoms in stellar spectra and the temperature and electron densities in the stellar atmospheres. If you are interested, you could try reading The Atmospheres of the Sun and Stars (published 1953) by Lawrence H. Aller, although I warn you that it is very heavy going.

Not sure how you think that addresses how the mere presence of elements means something has an atmosphere?

Also, although these elements may be present on the space station, they are not likely to be present there as atoms in highly ionised states, such as C IV, N V, O VI, Si III and Si IV, or as Fe XIV or Ni XVI, which were identified in the spectrum of the Sun's corona during the 1940s. Also the radioactive element technetium, which has been identified in the spectra of some giant stars (e.g. R Andromedae), is not likely to be present on the space station.

The issue was not what elements were present on either particular item. The issue was how you claim the mere presence of some elements must mean a planet style atmosphere!

We also might want to look at what causes ionization and whether we know this is what caused it in the star area.

 

[dad]

According to @AV1611VET 's rules:

we can go with Science!!!

lol!

Or Aesop, or Hans Christian Anderson..etc.

 

[dad]

and you acknowledge that a religious position is bad then? Nice admission. Too bad Science is nothing like you wish it were...

It is bad to pretend beliefs are science. That is the crime of modern science.

 

[dad]

This is just a bald, unfounded assertion, boldly plucked from your posterior. There's absolutely no reason to think this is the case at all, and every reason to assess the evidence we have at face value because it works precisely as our models predict it would. You have to provide evidence and/or a better model than the one science currently has in order to be taken seriously.

The reply has nothing to do with the question. If you claim you know what time is tell us. Then we can see how you think it applies to the unknown universe also and identically.

...because it works precisely as expected according to the well-validated scientific models we have.

What works in the fishbowl stays in the fishbowl.

...and looks exactly like a universe exhibiting pervasive time and space throughout, precisely as expected according to the well-validated scientific models we have.

From your tiny one observation point in your time and space there it would have to look that way to you. Irrelevant.

time is still not involved.

You claim no time is involved in hundreds of millions of miles of space in the solar system eh? Ha. Try to think before you post.

No, because he didn't. Did Scripture admit he failed to conquer the island fortress of Tyr and was consoled with the plunder of Egypt in lieu? Yes.

The ultimate fulfillment of prophesy in many cases is yet to come.

Same with the witness of all nations in all time of peoples on earth who believe in a flat-earth.

Old wives tale. You really thought all the ancients believed in that nonsense??

Why is there no verifiable evidence of spirits? We know our minds make things up, we know that we can hallucinate and we know we can be mistaken. The results of EVERY spiritual investigation by science, ever, has always resulted in 0 confirmed spirits. If they have an effect here as you allege, then we could investigate it. they obviously don't otherwise we could investigate it. The denial here is entirely on you.

You thought poor little weak pitiful science could have 'verified' spirits when it's very mandate is only the physical?? Ridiculous.

Absolutely Yes, through the filament of the light bulb exciting molecules in such a dramatic way as to flood the room with enormous amounts of photons and a little heat, released by the excitement of electrons through the superheated molecules of the light filament. How do you think Science knows so much about electricity? (Hint: It's because it has a very real effect here in reality)

You see the effects of the current.

If spirits (and even your God) were that demonstrable, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Man experiences the effect of their current.

 

[AirPo]

When people say it is written on a Christian forum, you know what it refers to.

As for Scripture and the topic, it is about how Scripture never said how big stars are.

 

[AirPo]

When people say it is written on a Christian forum, you know what it refers to.

When you say it is written in a secular sub forum, you know your in the wrong place.

As for Scripture and the topic, it is about how Scripture never said how big stars are.

Which means nothing.

 

[AirPo]

It is the beliefs of science that are being looked at. I understand how you can't defend them. Not interested in your religion, thanks.

Not it's not. It the crazy fantasy beliefs of The HI Theory that are being looked at. Not interested in your religion, thanks.

 

[AirPo]

It is bad to pretend beliefs are science. That is the crime of modern science.

It's comical to pretend the HI Theory is real.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is the beliefs of science that are being looked at. I understand how you can't defend them. Not interested in your religion, thanks.

Insisting on calling science a "religion" furthermore, does two additional things:
- it makes you more then a little hypocrite to say such things as if religion is bad
- it further lowers your credibility (assuming you have some left) by insisting on calling it religion, while it is the exact opposite.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Or Aesop, or Hans Christian Anderson..etc.

None of which has an explanation for the size of stars...

It is bad to pretend beliefs are science. That is the crime of modern science.

Beliefs play no part.

The reply has nothing to do with the question. If you claim you know what time is tell us. Then we can see how you think it applies to the unknown universe also and identically.

I don't claim to know what time is, I experience time and we have scientific models that accurately portray this experience of time, both here and for the rest of the universe we observe. To help you understand, the Hubble deep field photo was a time-lapse photo over 11 days. that's because of the distances involved and the dilution of light as it was both stretched out and redshifted outside our visual spectrum, and thinned out to be invisible in real time. and yes, this is exactly what we predicted we would see according to the well-validated scientific models we have, this is why we had the Hubble stare off into the empty void of space for so long in the first place.

What works in the fishbowl stays in the fishbowl.

Nope! It demonstrably works everywhere we look according to the well-validated scientific models we have.

From your tiny one observation point in your time and space there it would have to look that way to you. Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant - when we apply the well-validated scientific models we have to the rest of the universe and it returns the very specific observations we expect to see, then it works and we have very good reason to accept that as validation that what we see is indeed what we think we see.

You claim no time is involved in hundreds of millions of miles of space in the solar system eh? Ha. Try to think before you post.

Right there in your post, how much time is there in a "Mile"? How about Billions and Billions of miles, how much time is there in that? Try to Think before you Think, then try to Think again before you post, just to be sure. I'm not confident it'll help you though, not confident at all.

The ultimate fulfillment of prophesy in many cases is yet to come....

....in your fantasy imagined future vindication universe.

Old wives tale. You really thought all the ancients believed in that nonsense??

Yep! Thanks for the validation.

You thought poor little weak pitiful science could have 'verified' spirits when it's very mandate is only the physical?? Ridiculous.

Correct, so why waste time imagining things that have no effect in reality, which for all intents and purposes is exactly equivalent to something that does not exist?

You see the effects of the current.

Correct, which is why we have a very articulate understanding according to the well-validated scientific models we have for it.

Man experiences the effect of their current.

then demonstrate it like we can demonstrate the effects of electricity.

 

[Astrophile]

Since we do not know how energy permeates space and time far from the solar system, your point is moot. As for your idea of what stars are and how they work, sorry, that is just beliefs. I do not believe it.

This is bare assertion, without evidence. Would you like to explain your ideas of what stars are and how they work? If not, I will continue to go with what real astronomers have found out about stars.

Not sure how you think that addresses how the mere presence of elements means something has an atmosphere?

The issue was not what elements were present on either particular item. The issue was how you claim the mere presence of some elements must mean a planet style atmosphere!

It is not so much the presence of certain elements that shows that stars have atmospheres; it is more the presence of an absorption-line spectrum and the energy distribution of the continuous spectrum. Also stellar atmospheres are very different from the atmospheres of the terrestrial planets, although they resemble the atmosphere of the gaseous giant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune).

According to The Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy (Oxford University Press, 1997), a stellar atmosphere is, 'The low-density outer region of a star, transparent to light except at certain wavelengths which it absorbs. Absorption in stellar atmospheres produces the dark Fraunhofer lines in a star's spectrum' (my italics). The Penguin Dictionary of Astronomy defines the photosphere (the visible surface of the Sun) as 'a zone where the character of the gaseous layers changes from being completely opaque to radiation to being transparent', and The Collins Dictionary of Astronomy explains that 'the intensity of the solar photosphere is due to the radiation emitted, principally by negative hydrogen ions (H-) at depths of up to a few hundred kilometers' whereas 'at higher levels, where the density of H- ions is too low for appreciable opacity, the lower temperature gives rise to the absorption of discrete wavelengths'; this absorption produces the dark Fraunhofer lines.

Thus the atmosphere of a star is defined in terms of radiative transfer and the formation of spectral lines. It is not a gaseous layer encompassing a solid planetary nucleus, like the atmospheres of Venus, the Earth and Mars; instead it is the outer part of an entirely gaseous body where the temperature and density, and thus the opacity, are low enough to produce an absorption-line spectrum.

 

[dad]

When you say it is written in a secular sub forum, you know your in the wrong place.


Which means nothing.

Any forum about creation especially on a Christian site would have the same expectations. If someone says it is written that generally refers to Scripture. You seem to like quibbling.

 

[dad]

Not it's not. It the crazy fantasy beliefs of The HI Theory that are being looked at. Not interested in your religion, thanks.

What science says about stars and what the bible says actually are being looked at.

 

[dad]

Insisting on calling science a "religion" furthermore, does two additional things:
- it makes you more then a little hypocrite to say such things as if religion is bad

Not all beliefs are bad actually. The hypocrite is one who pushes their beliefs as if they were science.

- it further lowers your credibility (assuming you have some left) by insisting on calling it religion, while it is the exact opposite.

The credibility issue rests on two things.
1) Whether one finds the bible, or the baseless fables of science credible.
2)Whether one has supported the so called science they cherish and cheer lead.

On point 2, you fail.

 

[dad]

None of which has an explanation for the size of stars...

It doesn't matter if fairy tales have explanations for things or not. What maters is the basis for the explanations.

Beliefs play no part.

In science that pertains to origin issues belief plays the only role, it is a monologue.

I don't claim to know what time is,

There we have it!
I will ask the lurkers now, 'if this guy does not so much as know what time is, how would we believe him when he tries to tell us what time is out in the unknown far universe'???

I experience time

We all do...here in the fishbowl. Always here. Only here. Never ever anywhere else.

and we have scientific models that accurately portray this experience of time,

Only if fishbowl time accurately reflects time universally, and you have no clue that it does.

To help you understand, the Hubble deep field photo was a time-lapse photo over 11 days. that's because of the distances involved and the dilution of light as it was both stretched out and redshifted outside our visual spectrum, and thinned out to be invisible in real time. and yes, this is exactly what we predicted we would see according to the well-validated scientific models we have, this is why we had the Hubble stare off into the empty void of space for so long in the first place.

Hubble is in the fishbowl. Whatever way time lapsed...or did anything else there only tells us about fishbowl time.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

It doesn't matter if fairy tales have explanations for things or not. What maters is the basis for the explanations.

Correct. This is why Science has that explanation and the validated evidence to back it up, it has the best basis for that explanation

In science that pertains to origin issues belief plays the only role, it is a monologue.

Except for all the evidence, of course. you keep forgetting that bit.

There we have it!
I will ask the lurkers now, 'if this guy does not so much as know what time is, how would we believe him when he tries to tell us what time is out in the unknown far universe'???

Nobody has to believe me. They can test the models that make accurate predictions for themselves. That's the beauty of Science, nobody has to rely on anyone elses' word, they have all the evidence, datasets and methodology for doing the whole thing from the beginning themselves! lol!

We all do...here in the fishbowl. Always here. Only here. Never ever anywhere else.

and everywhere else in the universe we look too, we've been able to repeatedly validate the predictive models that demonstrate this. You have no answer for any of it other than than to demonstrate a hilariously gross misunderstanding of physics.

Only if fishbowl time accurately reflects time universally, and you have no clue that it does.

Again, except for all the well-validated scientific models we have that accurately predicts what we would expect to see time and time again.

Hubble is in the fishbowl. Whatever way time lapsed...or did anything else there only tells us about fishbowl time.

....yet It demonstrably works everywhere we look according to the well-validated scientific models we have, exactly as if time was pervasive throughout the universe. Even if as you fantasize, time isn't pervasive, the scientific models still work because what we see is identical to what we would expect to see. it's entirely up to you to provide an explanatory framework that works at least as good as the scientific models we already have, and I'm going to go right out on a limb here and state unequivocally that you have no hope of doing this. Ever.

"...if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a Duck!" - Likewise, if it looks like a universe billions of light years in size and age, acts like a universe billions of light years in size and age, It's a Universe billions of light years in size and age!