The only one who could be even remotely described as having a "snotty teen attitude" in this conversation is not philadiddle. I strongly recommend you cut the theatrics.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Warning: if you display that snotty teen attitude even once more then we will part company as far as any communication between us. Is that clear? Be a gentleman.
Just to be clear, are you looking for a direct observation of the entire process that takes millions of years, or are you looking for observed instances of the different stages and the chemistry/physics that supports the model?
That's an interesting double standard. Science must explain EVERY SINGLE DETAIL and since it doesn't it was a miracle that we know nothing about other than that it happened.
The only one who could be even remotely described as having a "snotty teen attitude" in this conversation is not philadiddle. I strongly recommend you cut the theatrics.
You aren't telling the truth
and I am not going to be sidetracked by you.
This, quite frankly, friend, is none of your business.
I am putting you on ignore, trogool.
I meant what I said.
And how long do you think this process would take? Do you think that our understanding of physic/chemistry leads us to believe that we have had telescopes long enough to observe the formation of a star from gas or from the remnants of a larger supernova?You can't even give an example of stars or planets forming in the short term.
Plasma used to occupy the entire universe.The order of the universe is dissipation, not coalescence. But you were mentally conditioned to believe just the opposite of observed phenomena. The suns are burning out (novas, supernovas), the galaxies are spinning out, and the Quasars are expending their fuel and not being replaced by others. You haven't figured this out yet. You don't wish to figure it out.
You're conflating issues. Do you want to know how galaxies and stars formed from gases or do you want to know how matter came into existence? Let's focus on one topic.I didn't ask for every single detail. I am asking for enough evidence to prove that nature created matter (directly against the 1st Law of T.) and that stars and planets were smoothly formed by natural processes.
It shows how non-sensical your demand is.You said, "...the entire process that takes millions of years."
Your statement is an admission that you have no such evidence.
And how long do you think this process would take? Do you think that our understanding of physic/chemistry leads us to believe that we have had telescopes long enough to observe the formation of a star from gas or from the remnants of a larger supernova?
Do you understand what it is you are asking?
Each of these steps takes millions of years, which is longer than we have had telescopes.
What we do see is different parts of these steps all throughout the universe. That's called direct observation.
To simplify the conversation how about you pick one of the steps listed above and explain how you know it couldn't happen.
You're conflating issues. Do you want to know how galaxies and stars formed from gases or do you want to know how matter came into existence?
It shows how non-sensical your demand is.
P.S. why did you avoid my challenge to you on the other thread concerning the formula for the lunar recession rate? Is it because you saw that I documented it was George Darwin who gave us the formula that concluded a 1.3 billion yr age limit to the moon and not creationists? Tell me please.
This is your problem, not mine. What you not getting (& like your comrades of like mind refuse to 'get it') is that we see dissipation, degeneration, and disolving of stars and/or galaxies, and/or comets. They come to an end and disappear but no one has ever seen the birth of a star...despite over thousands of years observation! Comets last for a time and disappear for we see it happen by observation but none has ever seen the 'birth' of a comet. Galaxies are spinning out and dissipating slowly...but none has ever observed the birth of a galaxy nor does anyone know how they were assembled to begin with.
It's the same here on earth. Extinction of species far outdistances 'newly evolved' organisms by thousands to zero. No one in hundreds of years have seen even one organism transform into a classifiably different organism.
And so since we cannot observe it then we should therefore believe it anyway? That's not science, that's guesswork.
The only direct observation we see is dissipation and the burning of what energy is still available. Eventually, if the Lord were to tarry, it would all be spent and the universe will come to a cold, dead end. It's called a heat death. If evolution were true this would not and could not happen. But evolution has no bearing on our universe. It doesn't even exist and it never did.
What step?
They don't formulate. They dissipate, degenerate, and come to a final end. Are you even aware that Betelguese has become smaller by over 15% of its size in the last 18 yrs. That's an example. One among many I can point out.
Really? Even though we have about 5,000 yrs of written human history and the observations of astronomers from ancient times?
Give me the confirmed observation of a single star fromation or a planet...or even a comet. Name one.
P.S. I already know what you're going to say.
no one has ever seen the birth of a star...despite over thousands of years observation!Each of these steps takes millions of years
I hope you are never on a forensics investigation team. Out of curiosity, do you yell at the TV when you watch CSI? After all, scientific evidence tends to trump eye witness testimony.And so since we cannot observe it then we should therefore believe it anyway? That's not science, that's guesswork.
You were already given a paper that cites the creation of heavier elements from a supernova.The only direct observation we see is dissipation and the burning of what energy is still available. Eventually, if the Lord were to tarry, it would all be spent and the universe will come to a cold, dead end. It's called a heat death. If evolution were true this would not and could not happen. But evolution has no bearing on our universe. It doesn't even exist and it never did.
The dissipation of the sun has no bearing on the larger supernova that preceeded it and the gravitational forces that acted on the remains to create our sun. There is seriously no connection at all.. They dissipate, degenerate, and come to a final end. Are you even aware that Betelguese has become smaller by over 15% of its size in the last 18 yrs. That's an example. One among many I can point out.
Most distant star-forming nebulae observedGive me the confirmed observation of a single star fromation or a planet...or even a comet. Name one.
http://www.fybertech.com/4get/12798360591901.gif
I hope you are never on a forensics investigation team. Out of curiosity, do you yell at the TV when you watch CSI? After all, scientific evidence tends to trump eye witness testimony.
You were already given a paper that cites the creation of heavier elements from a supernova.
The dissipation of the sun has no bearing on the larger supernova that preceeded it and the gravitational forces that acted on the remains to create our sun. There is seriously no connection at all.
Fact: Our sun is burning off energy. Fact: That first fact doesn't mean it couldn't have formed from natural processes.
You're not helping yourself, fella. The evidence we CAN observe is doing just the opposite to what evolutionists tell us. It is YOU that is not/are not following the leading of available evidence.
Despite the 1st Law? The level of your brainwashing by Darwinians is very deep.
The stars merely appear from behind gaseous nebular formations just like on earth, the stars appear to us from behind the clouds on a typical nice evening. Does that therefore mean we are seeing the birth of those stars just because they slowly appear to us from behind those clouds. You know the answer to that. Are you really so shallow as to believe that dissipating nebulas are going to create stars? By what gravitational force? And if there is such a gravitational force then why are those nebulas dissipating in the first place?
Finally, no one of your persuasion will escape this reality no matter what you do or how firmly you choose to remain in denial. The order of our world/universe is degeneration and evolution has nothing to do with it.
I think we're probably done here.
You still seem to be conflating two different topics. Are you arguing that matter cannot be created or that stars cannot form from gas clouds?You're not helping yourself, fella. The evidence we CAN observe is doing just the opposite to what evolutionists tell us. It is YOU that is not/are not following the leading of available evidence.
Good grief! When are you going to grasp that such things are not created...they are merely transformed from one stage of element to another; Ex: U238 breaks down to other elements such as Thorium, Plutonium, Polonium, etc. The elements are never created out of nothing...but God created the conditions in which those elements are made and then break down to others.
So what's your point? Why does that mean that they didn't form in the first place?You don't know what you're talking about. They are all dissipating, without exception. They will ALL burn out eventually even though some are farther along than others.
How does the sun forming from the remaining material of a previous supernova contradict the first law of thermodynamics?Despite the 1st Law? The level of your brainwashing by Darwinians is very deep.
And how did you come to that conclusion? Do you know they are behind the clouds because you've calculated their energy levels and shown how they have been affected by the gravitational lensing due to the nebula, therefore concluding that the light originates behind the cloud? Or maybe you managed to dig up the peer reviewed article on the signals found and you were able to re-calculate what was done and you can now point the physicists to the mistakes that they were making?The stars merely appear from behind gaseous nebular formations just like on earth, the stars appear to us from behind the clouds on a typical nice evening. Does that therefore mean we are seeing the birth of those stars just because they slowly appear to us from behind those clouds? You know the answer to that. Are you really so shallow as to believe that dissipating nebulas are going to create stars? By what gravitational force? And if there is such a gravitational force then why are those nebulas dissipating in the first place?
You feel you've backed yourself into a corner huh?I think we're probably done here.
You still seem to be conflating two different topics. Are you arguing that matter cannot be created or that stars cannot form from gas clouds?
So what's your point? Why does that mean that they didn't form in the first place?
How does the sun forming from the remaining material of a previous supernova contradict the first law of thermodynamics?
And how did you come to that conclusion? Do you know they are behind the clouds because you've calculated their energy levels and shown how they have been affected by the gravitational lensing due to the nebula, therefore concluding that the light originates behind the cloud? Or maybe you managed to dig up the peer reviewed article on the signals found and you were able to re-calculate what was done and you can now point the physicists to the mistakes that they were making?
You feel you've backed yourself into a corner huh?
Alright let's not debate this anymore. You can educate me because there's obviously something I'm missing here.No. Any honest person who has read this debate can see you have nothing. You're just blabbing. So why continue?
Alright let's not debate this anymore. You can educate me because there's obviously something I'm missing here.
You can educate me because there's obviously something I'm missing here.
I'm willing to hear what you have to say. I really want to understand your reasoning on that argument.You said it.
And would I be successful in such a venture? Well, in veiwing your attitude and your record as to how long you have been here on CF rejecting every bit of evidence that has been laid before you I would say my expectations are no better than a snowballs chance in Hades.
Happy posting with others.
Yes. That doesn't mean it couldn't be wrong, especially under conditions we have never seen, but it's quite reasonable to presume it's valid.The 1st Law is a well established fact of science as is possible.
This is much less clear, since it depends on what you mean by "matter". As most people use the word, then the statement is wrong. That is, most people (including most physicists) don't consider light, for example, to be matter, while something like hydrogen is. With that definition, matter can be (and is) created and destroyed. What can't be created (as far as we know) is energy.There is nothing we know of in nature that can or does create matter.
The Big Bang model makes several predictions, predictions that are not (as far as I know) made by other models. These predictions have been borne out by observation. Therefore, those observations are evidence that the Big Bang did indeed occur.The 'big bang' is only a theory and there is no evidence that it ever occurred.
This objection seems to reflect confusion about the model. I'm not sure what you mean by a singularity having "foci", but every point in the universe should be equally distant from the start of the Big Bang; put another way, every point in the universe was part of the Big Bang, since it contained all of space.Some scientists claim it but they cannot even locate the foci of the so-called singularity despite decades of tracing the red shifts of stars and galaxies.
I'm going to try to get back to the science a little, since arguments about what an explosion is and who's acting more like a snotty teenager don't strike me as very productive.
Stepping back a couple of days . . .
Yes. That doesn't mean it couldn't be wrong, especially under conditions we have never seen, but it's quite reasonable to presume it's valid.
This is much less clear, since it depends on what you mean by "matter". As most people use the word, then the statement is wrong. That is, most people (including most physicists) don't consider light, for example, to be matter, while something like hydrogen is. With that definition, matter can be (and is) created and destroyed. What can't be created (as far as we know) is energy.
So an important question is trying to understand the source of the Big Bang, and therefore of our visible universe, is, what is the total energy of the universe? A hypothesis, and it's still a hypothesis, is that the net energy of the universe is zero. If that's the case, then no violation of the 1st Law would have been required for the visible universe to begin.
The Big Bang model makes several predictions, predictions that are not (as far as I know) made by other models. These predictions have been borne out by observation. Therefore, those observations are evidence that the Big Bang did indeed occur.
This objection seems to reflect confusion about the model. I'm not sure what you mean by a singularity having "foci", but every point in the universe should be equally distant from the start of the Big Bang; put another way, every point in the universe was part of the Big Bang, since it contained all of space.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?