If the universe is <10,000 old....

[Trogool]

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.

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.

 

[Martyrs44]

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?

You can't even give an example of stars or planets forming in the short term. 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.

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.

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.

You said, "...the entire process that takes millions of years."

Your statement is an admission that you have no such evidence.

 

[Martyrs44]

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.

 

[Trogool]

You aren't telling the truth

I'm failing to see how a subjective personal opinion can be not true.

and I am not going to be sidetracked by you.

By all means, get back on topic.

This, quite frankly, friend, is none of your business.

Sure it is. This is a public internet forum, or had you not noticed? If you don't like multiple people comments, you can ask philididdle if he'd like to continue via PM or just not post here.

 

[Martyrs44]

I am putting you on ignore, trogool.

I meant what I said.

 

[Trogool]

I am putting you on ignore, trogool.

I meant what I said.

Great for you. You've been here 48 hours and have barely 50 posts, and you're already in such conflict with other members that you need to censor them from your experience? That's rather sad.

 

[philadiddle]

You can't even give an example of stars or planets forming in the short term.

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?

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.

Plasma used to occupy the entire universe.
Then the universe cooled to form gases.
Gravity acted on the gas to form cloud nebulas which eventually formed stars, sometimes very large stars.
Fusion happened in the stars to produce some of the elements.
These large stars supernovaed to create heavier elements.
The remnents of those supernova created smaller stars (like our sun) and the planets around them.

Each of these steps takes millions of years, which is longer than we have had telescopes. I assume you understand that basic principle so we will not have directly observed the ENTIRE process of any of these steps.

What we do see is different parts of these steps all throughout the universe. That's called direct observation. In addition to directly observing various steps we can add to that a lot of knowledge of physics and chemistry. We can perform experiments on small scales to verify some parts of it, and we can make predictions about what we should observe in space if the above process is actually occuring.

To simplify the conversation how about you pick one of the steps listed above and explain how you know it couldn't happen.

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.

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.

You said, "...the entire process that takes millions of years."

Your statement is an admission that you have no such evidence.

It shows how non-sensical your demand is.

 

[Martyrs44]

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?

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.

Each of these steps takes millions of years, which is longer than we have had telescopes.

And so since we cannot observe it then we should therefore believe it anyway? That's not science, that's guesswork.

What we do see is different parts of these steps all throughout the universe. That's called direct observation.

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.

To simplify the conversation how about you pick one of the steps listed above and explain how you know it couldn't happen.

What step?

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?

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.

It shows how non-sensical your demand is.

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 formation or a planet...or even a comet. Name one.

P.S. I already know what you're going to say.

 

[NGC 6712]

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.

I did? I never saw your reply. Which thread?

 

[Trogool]

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.

Actually, we have.

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.

Oh, you're one of those people that confuses biology with cosmology.

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.

Discovery of an Extremely Young Accreting Protostar in Taurus - Abstract - The Astrophysical Journal Letters - IOPscience

Sure, IRAM 04191+1523. And VLA 1623.

 

[philadiddle]

Each of these steps takes millions of years

no one has ever seen the birth of a star...despite over thousands of years observation!

http://www.fybertech.com/4get/12798360591901.gif

And so since we cannot observe it then we should therefore believe it anyway? That's not science, that's guesswork.

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.

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.

You were already given a paper that cites the creation of heavier elements from a supernova.

. 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.

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.

Give me the confirmed observation of a single star fromation or a planet...or even a comet. Name one.

Most distant star-forming nebulae observed

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/513/1/L57

 

[Martyrs44]

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'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.

You were already given a paper that cites the creation of heavier elements from a supernova.

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.

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.

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.

Fact: Our sun is burning off energy. Fact: That first fact doesn't mean it couldn't have formed from natural processes.

Despite the 1st Law? The level of your brainwashing by Darwinians is very deep.

Most distant star-forming nebulae observed

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.

 

[Trogool]

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.

So first you complain about there not being evidence of a million-year process in a thousands of years time frame, and then you claim there is unspecified evidence that defies conventional astrophysics, but don't cite it?

Despite the 1st Law? The level of your brainwashing by Darwinians is very deep.

Have you even taken high school physics? I don't know what a "Darwinian" is, but Darwin didn't even come up once in my physics course.

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.

If evolution has nothing to do with it, why do you keep bringing it up?

 

[philadiddle]

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.

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 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.

So what's your point? Why does that mean that they didn't form in the first place?

Despite the 1st Law? The level of your brainwashing by Darwinians is very deep.

How does the sun forming from the remaining material of a previous supernova contradict the first law of thermodynamics?

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?

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?

I think we're probably done here.

You feel you've backed yourself into a corner huh?

 

[Martyrs44]

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?

No. Any honest person who has read this debate can see you have nothing. You're just blabbing. So why continue?

 

[philadiddle]

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.

We agree that the sun is burning off energy. You have said that that means the sun couldn't have been made by natural processes. Can you please explain that to me? Why does the sun winding down mean it couldn't have been formed by gravity acting on the remains of a previous supernova? I'm really not seeing the connection here in your logic so this is a great opportunity for you to set me straight.

 

[Martyrs44]

Alright let's not debate this anymore. You can educate me because there's obviously something I'm missing here.

You said it.

You can educate me because there's obviously something I'm missing here.

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.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

I'm willing to hear what you have to say. I really want to understand your reasoning on that argument.

All you've been doing in your last few posts in talked about honesty and personality. I'm trying to focus on the actual arguments and that is what I am trying to get out of you. Hopefully you will lay out what the argument is so that I can understand it better, even if that doesn't mean agreeing with the argument, understanding your view better is a good first step. I don't think anybody here knows what you mean when you say that the sun burning out means it couldn't have formed by natural process. Some clarification on your reasoning would be helpful.

 

[sfs]

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 . . .

The 1st Law is a well established fact of science as is possible.

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.

There is nothing we know of in nature that can or does create matter.

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' is only a theory and there is no evidence that it ever occurred.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Martyrs44]

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.

"Let there be light and there was light". Genesis 1:3. There you have your answer; God created it by the power of His word. His word tells us that He is the only Creator and that nothing else can create. The 1st law is merely a confirmation of this eternal truth.

"I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" Isaiah 44:24

Now what more do you need?

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.

Is the energy in your cars gas tank 'net zero'...while it is not in use? There is one sure fire way to find out; Switch on the ignition key. So just think of the universe as one giant gas tank. Perhaps that will put things into perspective.

The 'net zero' arugment is merely a philosophical toy for scripture rejecting skeptics to play with. It has no real value as far as our physical world is concerned.

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.

You could easily prove me/us wrong by reproducing the effect. But that you cannot do...even with the 'virtual particle' that your side brought up. But that particle lasts less than a nano-second. Do you know how long a nano-second is? One billionth of a second. And you wish to build you stellar evolution (big 'bang') theory on that? By comparison a nan-second is to one second as is one second to 31.7 yrs.

So, unless you can demonstate that matter can be created and stay physical for longer than that you have no case.

I maintain that the virtual particle is our connection with the spirit realm for we know neither where they come from nor where they go, a la...

"...but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

There was no 'big bang'. That is a pseudo-scientific claim that is predicated on the idea that the universe made itself...despite the 1st law...which they claim was not in existence at that time but came into existence later. Do they give us proof? No. Do they give us a date when the 1st law became law? No. They don't know. They guess. They guess wrongly. It is the Lord who told us the truth.

You should believe Him and not them.