Star Formation and why evolution is not true

[Wiccan_Child]

Science to me is about practicality. It's worth doing if private parties are willing to pay you to conduct the research. The most practical things in science have little to do with the origin of things, and the origin of things doesn't easily mesh with the scientific method (no experimental data or human observation). It isn't the case that belief in God precludes science--it merely sharpens the focus of science on things that have good practical value, like pharmaceutical research, for example.

Why, then, are you butchering established thermodynamic proofs to conjure up your deity of choice?

 

[True_Blue]

Why, then, are you butchering established thermodynamic proofs to conjure up your deity of choice?

I have not done so, Wiccan, as explained in the other thread.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Science to me is about practicality. It's worth doing if private parties are willing to pay you to conduct the research. The most practical things in science have little to do with the origin of things, and the origin of things doesn't easily mesh with the scientific method (no experimental data or human observation). It isn't the case that belief in God precludes science--it merely sharpens the focus of science on things that have good practical value, like pharmaceutical research, for example.

The past isnt subject to the scientific method? wow get ready to release all of the criminals convicted with forensics. studying evolution matters not just because of what it says about origins but what it says about population change over time. antibacterial resistence anyone? it is the framework within which all of biology is explainable. i'd say thats important and has practical benefit. phamaceutical experimentation on animas is based an assumption of evolutionary relationship. if we dont share a common ancestor with mice then testing drugs on them is a waste of time and money and is a threat to human health. and yet countless pharmaceuticals and proceedures were tested on animals first and transfered to humans successfully.

 

[Chalnoth]

Science to me is about practicality. It's worth doing if private parties are willing to pay you to conduct the research. The most practical things in science have little to do with the origin of things, and the origin of things doesn't easily mesh with the scientific method (no experimental data or human observation). It isn't the case that belief in God precludes science--it merely sharpens the focus of science on things that have good practical value, like pharmaceutical research, for example.

It seems to me that you haven't even bothered to respond to my post. Care to try again?

 

[corvus_corax]

If you can read an outside source, summarize its ideas, and show using principles-based reasoning that my ideas are wrong, then please do so. I'm interested in talking about ideas, and I'm most interesting in getting you guys to think for yourself and independently analyze the atheist theories for veracity.

(emphasis mine)

Yeah, this goes back to page one of this thread, but the bolded part above demonstrates the blatant hyporcrisy of TB
TB- "Show using principles-based reasoning that my ideas are wrong"

It has been shown and TB refuses to acknowledge it or even address it (yeah, I know, different thread, but the principle of the ignorance and hypocrisy still stands). As a matter of fact, TB claims to not see any correlation at all.

I just don't get feeding (or rather

) this kind of "I don't wanna know" mentality.

It's gotta be for the lurkers.
Right?

Right???

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

science on things that have good practical value, like pharmaceutical research, for example.

Phaarmaceutical research goes hand in hand with genetic research, which goes hand in hand with evolution, i.e pharmaceuticals are mostly derived from plants, including genetic modifaction, which is humans speeding up evolution.

No matter which roads different fields of science take, they will inevitably impinge on the field of evolution.

Let me ask you one thing seeing you are a creationist and a so called geologist. How come the geological record has such large and extensive sediments from between the K-T boundary and the Ice Age, when creationist state that the ice age happened directly after the end of the flood, these sediments also contains human remains and thousands of now extinct animals, here’s a picture of the largest.

Quote from LINK
Indricotherium is an extinct early relative of modern rhinos that lived during the late Oligocene and early Miocene Epochs of the Cenozoic Era. It was also the largest land mammal ever to live on land, at about 25 feet long, 17 feet tall, and weighing nearly 18 tons. In terms of weight, it was four times larger than a modern day bull elephant and rivaled the size of large sauropod dinosaurs that lived during the Mesozoic. Fossils of indricotherium have been unearthed in the Baluchistan province of Pakistan.

Indricotherium was an ungulate (hoofed mammal) that has certain things in common with modern horses and rhinos. It had three hoofed toes on each foot, much like modern rhinos, and had a body in the shape of a bulky horse. Its head was supported by a thick neck that was flexible enough to allow the indricotherium to point its mouth upward to get at hard-to-reach vegetation. Like many Jurassic sauropods, indricotherium was able to reach its titanic size by exploiting a niche that was out of reach of most herbivores. Due to its height, it was able to exclusively browse on the tops of trees nearly twenty feet tall. Its size became its biggest defense against predators, since no mammalian predator of the Oligocene was large enough to bother a full-grown indricotherium. It had two tusk-like front teeth which it used to snip off vegetation which it would then grind with specialized molar-like back teeth. In addition, like modern rhinos, indricotherium had a large, prehensile upper lip that would have aided in stripping vegetation.

During the Oligocene, much of the Earth was covered in dry, seasonal scrublands which could support a variety of large grazing animals as well as large predators. Indricotherium, like other large modern grazing mammals gave birth to a large, single calf. This calf would have needed up to two or three years of care from its mother in order to reach a size large enough to evade predators. A contemporary predator in the Oligocene, hyaenodon, was the size of a rhino and could have easily killed an infant or juvenile indricotherium if given the opportunity.

 

[Vene]

Um, Chordates, he's not the one claiming to be a geologist. I think you're thinking of juvenissun.

 

[True_Blue]

The past isnt subject to the scientific method? wow get ready to release all of the criminals convicted with forensics. studying evolution matters not just because of what it says about origins but what it says about population change over time. antibacterial resistence anyone? it is the framework within which all of biology is explainable. i'd say thats important and has practical benefit. phamaceutical experimentation on animas is based an assumption of evolutionary relationship. if we dont share a common ancestor with mice then testing drugs on them is a waste of time and money and is a threat to human health. and yet countless pharmaceuticals and proceedures were tested on animals first and transfered to humans successfully.

I used the words "doesn't easily mesh" with the scientific method. You can, but the conclusions are typically less accurate. The fact that mice are made out of the same general stuff as people says nothing about evolution or creation. That is a neutral fact.

 

[True_Blue]

Phaarmaceutical research goes hand in hand with genetic research, which goes hand in hand with evolution, i.e pharmaceuticals are mostly derived from plants, including genetic modifaction, which is humans speeding up evolution.

No matter which roads different fields of science take, they will inevitably impinge on the field of evolution.

Let me ask you one thing seeing you are a creationist and a so called geologist. How come the geological record has such large and extensive sediments from between the K-T boundary and the Ice Age, when creationist state that the ice age happened directly after the end of the flood, these sediments also contains human remains and thousands of now extinct animals, here’s a picture of the largest.
[/I]

I am not a geologist. My specialized training is in finance and law, but I've taken what amounts to a supermajor in a wide variety of scientific fields. I don't know about the particular data you are referring to. However, in the Western United States, there used to be several supermassive lakes, such as Lake Bonneville and Lake Missoula. During and after Noah's Flood, the plates underwent enormous upheaval, causing the rising and sinking of large sections of the crust. The Rocky Mountains are an example, and a tremendous amount of left-over water was trapped in certain bowls. The water was augmented by the massive amount of precipitation that followed the Flood, since ocean waters were extremely hot and gave off large amounts of precipitation, which came down as snow and rain in the upper latitudes and the mountain areas and causing the Great Ice Age. As the ice caps rapidly moved south (and north), they both caused and breached the bowls containing these huge inland lakes, causing floods that carved out the Columbia River Gorge near my hometown, and the Grand Canyon, for instance. Charles Darwin observed such a breach point in South America, but improperly attributed it to gradual erosion from rivers. My sequence of events may be off, but you can get the general idea here: http://www.hugefloods.com/. The evidence for massive post-Flood floods in various regions of the world is quite manifest.

 

[tcampen]

The model I have presented here is applicable to the first cell, not people. Against the evolution of people, there are dozens of compelling arguments. Here are a few from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis.

---------

There are lots of other processes that work against human evolution, and this only scratches the surface of the problems evolutionists face.

When starting from any known, current event, and then working backwards to some point in the past to determine the odds of the current condition, any reasonable person will find the odds to be astronomically small. Consider the likelihood of your typing the exact post you did at that time on that subject in response to the previous post, etc., and then go back a mere 20 years. From the point back in July of 1989, think about everything that would have have had to happen exactly as it did for your post #136 in this thread to exist. It is beyond comprehension all the possible intervening factors that could have occured in those 20 years to prevent post #136 from occuring as it is, where it is, when it is. This same approach can also be applied to every event in human life to make that event so improbable it couldn't have happened - yet here we are.

It's like stating how amazing it is all those rivers just happen to flow along those state and international borders so perfectly.

The fact is we are here. It is no more believable the universe was created 9 minutes ago with implanted memories and evidence of a past than it is to assume the universe is 6,000-12,000 years old with and implanted past to appear billions of years old.

Hey, perhaps miracles really do happen. But it is quite remarkable that as our understanding of the natural universe increases, the number of truely miraculous events decreases. It is so coincidental that events like the earth stopping in its rotation, all kinds of dead people rising from their tombs to walk about the city, or people being instantly spread around the world speaking different, incoherent languages all happened at time when people were too ignorant to truely question the veracity of such claims.

Let's look for real evidence and go where it leads us, rather than starting with what we want the conclusion to be, and only seeing that which supports our preconceived conclusions. That is honesty.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

This thread seeks to show that the atheist model of evolution is incorrect by going back to first principles to challenge atheist notions of star formation.

[snip]

Third, the purpose of this post is to convince you to give Christianity a second look, not get my ideas published. I care more about your souls than anything else.

Star formation has nothing to do with biological evolution. A deficit in one model has no impact on the other. But more to the point, a deficit in the evolutionary model of life has no impact on the validity of Christianity. If you want people to give Christianity a chance, perhaps start by talking about Christianity.

 

[[serious]]

Under both theories, large clouds of interstellar gas and dust collapse under the force of gravity, or else under the force of a shock wave from another star that went supernova, or some other unnamed exogenous force.

actually, it's always gravity. shock waves can stir up a uniform gas to help speed the accreditation of hydrogen though.

The interstellar gas theories of star formation cannot be true, and here are my views on why:

1. The predominant constituent of the interstellar gas clouds is H2. However, H2 has a high amount of electrostatic repulsion. In essence, the atoms push away from each other to a large degree, and that force of repulsion is vastly greater than gravity, which is one of the weakest forces in nature. Thus, if you pop a balloon full of hydrogen or helium, the atoms will evenly fill the room and never come back together.

Er, hydrogen is electrostatically neutral. One proton and one electron each, no net charge. The presence of gravity increases the gas pressure and keeps the gas from dissipating just as earth's gravity holds nitrogen, oxygen, and CO2 at a certain pressure.

2. Radiation pressure also opposes the collapse of gas clouds. Any theoretical or misnamed "proto-star" within a gas cloud will emit radiation that effectively opposes the entrance of new particles to increase the size of the protostar, which would emit solar wind. Also, imagine a continuously exploding atomic bomb. Now imagine trying to walk toward that atomic bomb against the shock waves that it would emit. If any gas cloud managed to coalesce around the star, the gas cloud would become an atmosphere that would get blown away by the detonations within the "protostar."

Think about this for a second, how much energy does it take to put an object into orbit around earth? A whole lot. Now, extend that out to a much larger pull of a proto star. Then look at the size required for an effective solar sail in even an active star's orbit. The balance we see struck between the fusion in a star and the gravitational colapse is responsible for the volume of stars being so much larger than the hydrogen would otherwise be. This is whY dead stars and gas giants are more dense than stars. Jupiter, by the way, holds its hydrogen just fine despite its radiation output.

3. The force of gravity within a dispersed interstellar gas cloud is vastly insufficient to collapse the cloud to form a star/protostar. Even the force of gravity of the Earth, which is far more dense than interstellar gas clouds, is insufficient to retain hydrogen and helium in our atmosphere.

now this argument should seem wrong to you even at first blush. if the gravity of a hydrogen cloud was insufficient to hold a hydrogen cloud together, why are there hydrogen clouds? Now, looking a little closer look, things get even worse for your argument. Gravity is not a function of density but of mass and distance. We can artificially make things denser than earth's gravity would dictate. this doesn't make gravity stick them together as tight as we've made them. Why? The mass isn't there. now, in a hydrogen cloud, there is plenty of mass, it's just spread out. Now, as it colapses, the distance decreases increasing the effect of gravity greatly. halving the distance increase gravitational pull by four times. Gravity is the only fundamental force that effectively acts over great distance (EM can act over distance but the attractive and repulsive actions are balanced) so there really is much to keep it from collapsing until you reach distances where the expansion of space itself becomes a factor.

4. "Shockwaves from supernovae or other energetic astronomical processes" [link] are insufficient to force a huge disbursed cloud of interstellar gas to come together. That would be akin to moving your hand through a room full of hydrogen gas. The moving hand does nothing more than increase turbulence, and turbulence opposes gravity. [link]

The shock waves only provide a local concentration to seed the gravitational collapse into a star.

5. Under the Second Law of Thermodynamics, complex systems move from order to disorder. Thus, stars are in the business of transforming their intensely concentrated mass into waste electromagnetic energy and tiny particles that are spread throughout the universe, never to be concentrated again by natural forces. Moreover, exploding stars facially cannot create new stars [save whatever matter was left over]. Any stars that might theoretically form are insignificant second-order effects, much like little waves left over after a tsunami strikes land. An exploding balloon doesn't give rise to another balloon, and an exploding atomic bomb doesn't give rise to another atomic bomb.

you are apparently unaware that h bombs use a fission bomb to activate the fussion bomb. As far as thermodynamics, you've got it competely wrong. water flowing down hill, chemicals moving down their concentration gradient, etc. are examples of entropy increasing. hydrogen falling down a gravity well is THE EXACT SAME THING.

Dr. Russell Humphreys, a retired Sandia physicist, created a Creationist cosmological model that is related to star formation and makes a great deal of sense to me. It fits the natural laws and observational evidence. Genesis 1:2 says that at Time 0, there existed something called The Deep, a great rotating ball of water. Beginning at Time 0, the ball of water begins to collapse inward upon itself, stripping the water molecules and creating a giant fiery ball of plasma. Around 24 hours, light from the ball reaches the Schwarzschild radius of the ball and cannot escape ["He separated the light from the darkness"]. God then changes the cosmological constant to a very large number and converts the black hole of The Deep into a white hole, disbursing the matter and energy on the surface of a hypersphere throughout the universe. Essentially, stars and galaxies and galactic clusters are big gooey globs of hot matter and energy left over from the massive ball at the beginning. This description, which describes the bare minimum of Humphreys' cosmology, comports with the 2nd Law (massive ball into littler balls) and is a more coherent rationale for star formation than the existing theories.

that's not right, that's not even wrong