Star Formation and why evolution is not true

[True_Blue]

The primary problem with this is that stars weren't always around. And while the remanants of previous stellar explosions do make up a significant amount of matter, most of the gas in the universe has never collapsed into a star.

Basically the primary drive of star formation, as I have said, is simple collapse from radiative cooling. There exists lots of gas in galaxies, and as long as that gas is allowed to cool, it will collapse in on itself, forming stars in the overdense areas.

To restate my hypothesis in a way that is a little more clear, The Deep, once it began compressing and rotating immediately after Time 0, became the functional equivalent of a single, supermassive star. When it exploded or was expanded by God using means somewhat similar to those described in the Big Bang theory, it broke into all the pieces that comprise the stars and galaxies in the presently observable universe.

 

[mpok1519]

that is somehow eerily similiar to the big-bang theory, but condenses it into a quasi-theoscientific probability...

 

[Chalnoth]

To restate my hypothesis in a way that is a little more clear, The Deep, once it began compressing and rotating immediately after Time 0, became the functional equivalent of a single, supermassive star. When it exploded or was expanded by God using means somewhat similar to those described in the Big Bang theory, it broke into all the pieces that comprise the stars and galaxies in the presently observable universe.

The Deep was a massive body of water from which the Earth was born in a bronze-age myth. It has no relevance whatsoever to the early universe.

 

[True_Blue]

that is somehow eerily similiar to the big-bang theory, but condenses it into a quasi-theoscientific probability...

I have several fundamental problems with the Big Bang theory. First, it provides no theory of origination of the natural laws of the universe, which themselves bear the hallmarks of order and design. Second, it postulates that matter originated in a singularity. But that is a fundamental contradiction because a singularity is a point of zero density, and nothing that has density can be compressed into zero density, let alone all the matter in the universe. Third, the Big Bang Theory provides no theory of causation. If you accept that all matter and energy in the universe originated with a singularity, there is no identification of an exogenous force that caused the singularity to expand. For these and other reasons, I believe the Big Bang Theory is purely religious, not even quasi-theoscientific (I like that word, by the way), because the Big Bang Theory at its inception has no scientific basis.

 

[True_Blue]

The Deep was a massive body of water from which the Earth was born in a bronze-age myth. It has no relevance whatsoever to the early universe.

It has relevance because it states that the matter in the universe did not originate in a singularity. This makes the Deep an immeasurably better theory than the Big Bang Theory, at least the Big Bang Theory as articulated in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

[Chalnoth]

First, it provides no theory of origination of the natural laws of the universe, which themselves bear the hallmarks of order and design.

So what? The big bang theory describes how our region of the universe has expanded with time. And it does so to a high degree of accuracy, as evidenced by multiple, independent lines of evidence.

Would you object to General Relativity because it doesn't explain how babies are born?

Second, it postulates that matter originated in a singularity.

This is only if you take the theory beyond the point at which it is applicable. This is wrong: there was no singularity.

Third, the Big Bang Theory provides no theory of causation. If you accept that all matter and energy in the universe originated with a singularity, there is no identification of an exogenous force that caused the singularity to expand.

Again, didn't happen. There was no singularity: that is beyond the scope of the theory.

For these and other reasons, I believe the Big Bang Theory is purely religious, not even quasi-theoscientific (I like that word, by the way), because the Big Bang Theory at its inception has no scientific basis.

Well, perhaps you should take the time to learn with the big bang theory actually is, then, because it's not what you claim.

 

[True_Blue]

So what? The big bang theory describes how our region of the universe has expanded with time. And it does so to a high degree of accuracy, as evidenced by multiple, independent lines of evidence.

Would you object to General Relativity because it doesn't explain how babies are born?

This is only if you take the theory beyond the point at which it is applicable. This is wrong: there was no singularity.

Again, didn't happen. There was no singularity: that is beyond the scope of the theory.

Well, perhaps you should take the time to learn with the big bang theory actually is, then, because it's not what you claim.

Whatever, Chalnoth. It's not my problem if atheists can't come to a consensus about their own theory.

 

[Chalnoth]

It has relevance because it states that the matter in the universe did not originate in a singularity. This makes the Deep an immeasurably better theory than the Big Bang Theory, at least the Big Bang Theory as articulated in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Why don't you actually read the article? It states quite explicitly that the theory doesn't describe a singularity. Here, I'll quote the relevant passage:

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch.

(emphasis mine)

The theory describes the universe accurately only back so far. We can't take the singularity prediction seriously, because it's nonsense. As long as you use General Relativity, there is forced to be a singularity in the finite past, so this is an indication that General Relativity is wrong. Since the big bang theory assumes General Relativity, it too must be wrong on some level. But it has proven to be extremely accurate back very, very far in time.

 

[mpok1519]

I have several fundamental problems with the Big Bang theory. First, it provides no theory of origination of the natural laws of the universe, which themselves bear the hallmarks of order and design. Second, it postulates that matter originated in a singularity. But that is a fundamental contradiction because a singularity is a point of zero density, and nothing that has density can be compressed into zero density, let alone all the matter in the universe. Third, the Big Bang Theory provides no theory of causation. If you accept that all matter and energy in the universe originated with a singularity, there is no identification of an exogenous force that caused the singularity to expand. For these and other reasons, I believe the Big Bang Theory is purely religious, not even quasi-theoscientific (I like that word, by the way), because the Big Bang Theory at its inception has no scientific basis.

But, intellegent design has scientific basis? no it does not; which is why it needs to stay out of classrooms.

 

[True_Blue]

Why don't you actually read the article? It states quite explicitly that the theory doesn't describe a singularity. Here, I'll quote the relevant passage:

(emphasis mine)

The key word is "debated." Stephen Hawking certainly argues for a singularity. Do you think he qualifies as a credible scientist on your side of the fence?

stephen + hawking + singularity

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...+singularity&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501-s&ei=UTF-8

 

[JBJoe]

The key word is "debated." Stephen Hawking certainly argues for a singularity. Do you think he qualifies as a credible scientist on your side of the fence?

stephen + hawking + singularity

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...+singularity&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501-s&ei=UTF-8

Wow... So Stephen Hawking has a hypothesis about the state of the universe prior to big bang expansion. Hardly earth shattering news.

Are you implying that maybe Stephen Hawking doesn't agree with the big bang theory?

Or are you implying that, because different scientists have different hypotheses about the universe prior to Planck time, somehow this invalidates the big bang theory?

 

[Chalnoth]

The key word is "debated." Stephen Hawking certainly argues for a singularity. Do you think he qualifies as a credible scientist on your side of the fence?

stephen + hawking + singularity

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...+singularity&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501-s&ei=UTF-8

No, he doesn't argue for a real singularity. His particular pet hypothesis is the no boundary condition. It's a bit technical, but here it is from the man's own mouth, from the above search no less:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

While it may appear to some that at one point he's talking about the existence of a real singularity, he's really proposing it as an argument ad absurdum in order to show why it can't possibly be accurate. He then goes on to describe a few methods proposed to resolve the singularity, and finishes with the one he likes, the no boundary condition. Here's a small quote:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial]The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth, or so I'm told. I have not been there myself.

So, there you go. When read correctly, cosmologists are in agreement that there was no singularity in the finite past of the universe.
[/FONT]

 

[True_Blue]

Wow... So Stephen Hawking has a hypothesis about the state of the universe prior to big bang expansion. Hardly earth shattering news.

Are you implying that maybe Stephen Hawking doesn't agree with the big bang theory?

Or are you implying that, because different scientists have different hypotheses about the universe prior to Planck time, somehow this invalidates the big bang theory?

I'm basically saying that there isn't a single unified theory. I've had other posters on Christian Forums tell me how stupid I was for supposing that the Big Bang did NOT originate in a singularity. "Heads I win, tails you lose...." Very frustrating.

Regardless of the form the Big Bang takes, I cannot imagine such a phenomenon without God.

 

[True_Blue]

No, he doesn't argue for a real singularity. His particular pet hypothesis is the no boundary condition. It's a bit technical, but here it is from the man's own mouth, from the above search no less:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

While it may appear to some that at one point he's talking about the existence of a real singularity, he's really proposing it as an argument ad absurdum in order to show why it can't possibly be accurate. He then goes on to describe a few methods proposed to resolve the singularity, and finishes with the one he likes, the no boundary condition. Here's a small quote:

So, there you go. When read correctly, cosmologists are in agreement that there was no singularity in the finite past of the universe.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Well, I'm glad you cleared up that little misunderstanding, Chalnoth. The essay you sent, however, is very clear in its lack of answers. I myself could never be satisfied to be as uncertain about the universe as Stephen Hawking is. I think it's hard to reject the Bible and find certainty elsewhere.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Regardless of the form the Big Bang takes, I cannot imagine such a phenomenon without God.

Fortunately, your lack of imagination is no limitation on reality.

 

[Chalnoth]

I'm basically saying that there isn't a single unified theory.

No, there isn't. That's no reason to give up looking for one, however.

Regardless of the form the Big Bang takes, I cannot imagine such a phenomenon without God.

Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean there isn't a fully naturalistic process that's going on here.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, I'm glad you cleared up that little misunderstanding, Chalnoth. The essay you sent, however, is very clear in its lack of answers. I myself could never be satisfied to be as uncertain about the universe as Stephen Hawking is. I think it's hard to reject the Bible and find certainty elsewhere.

The real world is not so easy. I would rather have an understanding of what I know and what I do not know, than leap to some unreasonable conclusions and forever delude myself into believing I have the answers. The fact of the matter is that there are just some questions to which humans have not yet discovered the answers. This simple, obvious fact in no way, shape, or form lends credence to people who merely claim to have the answers, but in actual fact merely present claims backed with no evidence whatsoever.

Put another way, just because you like being certain doesn't mean that a belief system which offers an illusion of certainty is accurate.

 

[True_Blue]

No, there isn't. That's no reason to give up looking for one, however.


Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean there isn't a fully naturalistic process that's going on here.

If you go back far enough, there cannot be a naturalistic process to explain things. Naturalism taken far enough is religious.

 

[Chalnoth]

If you go back far enough, there cannot be a naturalistic process to explain things. Naturalism taken far enough is religious.

Why not? Why can't there be an ultimate cause that turns out to be fully naturalistic and self-explanatory?

 

[True_Blue]

Why not? Why can't there be an ultimate cause that turns out to be fully naturalistic and self-explanatory?

I recommend you step through Thomas' Aquinas' logic here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.toc.html. It is difficult for me to improve upon what Thomas Aquinas has already reasoned. Specifically, you might zero in on this page after reading the earlier syllogisms. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.ii.FP_Q2.FP_Q2_A3.html