"The Science Book!"

J

Jazer

Guest
"There can be little doubt that here 'day' has its basic sense of a 24-hour period."
Adam shows up in the Garden on the eighth day. There had to have been a week of 24 hour days in the year 4004bc. on what Ussher calls: Sunday, 23 October. We can all agree that week existed. Exactly what took place that week I am not sure. I can just as easily show a day is 1,000 years. A day is 100 million years and a day is a billion years.

For example. This is very close to the end of the 13,000 year period of time sense the Holocene extinction and the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution. As it just so happens the universe is 13 billion years old. See how easy the numbers are to match up like that. As a dispensationist we believe that we are very close to the end of the sixth day. We are very close to the beginning of day seven when man will rest from his works in the same way that God rested from His works on the seventh day. The cambrian explosion, the beginning of multi celled live began around 550 million years ago.

I use to be afraid of OEC because I thought it would be way to difficult. As it turns out when your ready for it, the numbers are very easy to work with. There is no doubt a fifth grader can do all of this. In fact Jesus said you have to be as a child to understand.
 
Upvote 0
Further evidences from the Creation:

[The Fossil Record - Dr. Don Patton - not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:

The Fossil Record by Dr. Don Patton Ph.D. - YouTube

[Real Studies About Fossil Men - Dr. Don Patton - not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:
real studys about ''Fossil Men'' Geologist Dr.Patton Ph.D - YouTube

[Extraordinary Evidence That Dinosaurs Live With Man - Dr. Don Patton - not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:
Extraordinary Evidence that Dinosaurs Lived with Man - Dr. Don Patton (The Record of the Rocks) - YouTube

[What Is Creation Science? - Dr. Don Patton - not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:

What is Creation Science? - YouTube

[How Old Is The Earth? - Creation Or Evolution? - Dr. Don Patton - not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:
How old is the Earth - Creation or Evolution? - Seminar by Don Patton - YouTube

[A Fossil Record Debate: Creation or Evolution? Dr. Don Patton & Skeptic Mr. John Blanton]:

The Debate: Creation / Evolution - YouTube

...more to come...
 
Upvote 0
This would be the same "Dr" Don Patten who doesn't actually have a real doctorate - or even a bachelors degree - from an accredited institution in anything, let alone geology?
If you prefer not to use the "Dr." association, then this is of course your perogative. My interest is in the evidence itself, and if you would prefer I not use the "Dr." association, I will try to refrain from using it in further posts.

However, here is a summary of his ['Mr.' Don Patton's] qualifications, for those interested:

"[FONT=&quot]Professional Profile of Dr. Don Patton:
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Professional membership affiliation:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.[FONT=&quot]American Association For The Advancement Of Science[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.[FONT=&quot]Geological Society of America (Spoke at annual convention)[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.[FONT=&quot]The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 4.[FONT=&quot]Society for Sedimentary Geology[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.[FONT=&quot]National Speleological Society[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6.[FONT=&quot]International Who’s Who, Honored Member[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Lectured on college campuses, including:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.[FONT=&quot]Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.[FONT=&quot]Fresno State University, Fresno, CA[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.[FONT=&quot]Lamar University, Beaumont, TX[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4.[FONT=&quot]Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.[FONT=&quot]McMaster University, Hamilton, OT, Canada[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6.[FONT=&quot]Ogelthorpe University, Atlanta, GA[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7.[FONT=&quot]Texas A&M University, College Station, TX [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.[FONT=&quot]Texas A&M University, Galveston, TX[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9.[FONT=&quot]Texas A&M University, Commerce, TX[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10.[FONT=&quot]University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11.[FONT=&quot]University of Southwestern Missouri, Joplin, MO[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Additional experiences include:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.[FONT=&quot]Conducted up to twelve Creation/Evolution Seminars a year for thirty years[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.[FONT=&quot]Numerous public debates on creation/evolution including radio and TV debates[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.[FONT=&quot]Appeared on NBC Special w/Charlton Heston: “Mysterious Origins of Man”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4.[FONT=&quot]Testified three times before Texas State Textbook Committee, Austin, TX[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.[FONT=&quot]Staff geologist of Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6.[FONT=&quot]Vice Chairman of Metroplex Institute of Origin Science[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7.[FONT=&quot]Preached the gospel as an evangelist for over 40 years[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Education:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.[FONT=&quot]Florida College, Temple Terrace, FL (Bible) 1959-1963[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.[FONT=&quot]Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN (Geology) 1973-1974[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.[FONT=&quot]Indiana Univ./Purdue Univ., Indianapolis, IN (Geology) 1974-1976[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4.[FONT=&quot]Pacific School of Graduate Studies, Melbourne, Australia (Geology) 1989-1991[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.[FONT=&quot]Pacific School of Graduate Studies, Melbourne, Australia (Education) 1992-1993[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6.[FONT=&quot]Ph.D. in Education granted 12/10/1993 (Pacific School of Graduate Studies)
(A brief history of the Pacific School of Graduate Studies in Melbourne, Australia, click here.)" [http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ask-creationist.htm]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

Blackwater Babe

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2011
7,093
246
United States
✟8,940.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Libertarian
First, demand that Biblical Creationism be regarded as a science. When everyone points out to you it in no way meets the definition of a science, demand the definition be changed.

Like a soccer team demanding to be allowed to play major league baseball, and then complaining they lose because the rules unfairly discriminate against them.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
3 Angels Messages said:
If you prefer not to use the "Dr." association, then this is of course your perogative. My interest is in the evidence itself, and if you would prefer I not use the "Dr." association, I will try to refrain from using it in further posts.

However, here is a summary of his ['Mr.' Don Patton's] qualifications, for those interested:

"Professional Profile of Dr. Don Patton:

Professional membership affiliation:
1.American Association For The Advancement Of Science
2.Geological Society of America (Spoke at annual convention)
3.The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
4.Society for Sedimentary Geology
5.National Speleological Society
6.International Who’s Who, Honored Member

Lectured on college campuses, including:
1.Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN
2.Fresno State University, Fresno, CA
3.Lamar University, Beaumont, TX
4.Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
5.McMaster University, Hamilton, OT, Canada
6.Ogelthorpe University, Atlanta, GA
7.Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
8.Texas A&M University, Galveston, TX
9.Texas A&M University, Commerce, TX
10.University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR
11.University of Southwestern Missouri, Joplin, MO

Additional experiences include:
1.Conducted up to twelve Creation/Evolution Seminars a year for thirty years
2.Numerous public debates on creation/evolution including radio and TV debates
3.Appeared on NBC Special w/Charlton Heston: “Mysterious Origins of Man”
4.Testified three times before Texas State Textbook Committee, Austin, TX
5.Staff geologist of Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX
6.Vice Chairman of Metroplex Institute of Origin Science
7.Preached the gospel as an evangelist for over 40 years

Education:
1.Florida College, Temple Terrace, FL (Bible) 1959-1963
2.Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN (Geology) 1973-1974
3.Indiana Univ./Purdue Univ., Indianapolis, IN (Geology) 1974-1976
4.Pacific School of Graduate Studies, Melbourne, Australia (Geology) 1989-1991
5.Pacific School of Graduate Studies, Melbourne, Australia (Education) 1992-1993
6.Ph.D. in Education granted 12/10/1993 (Pacific School of Graduate Studies)
(A brief history of the Pacific School of Graduate Studies in Melbourne, Australia, click here.)" [http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ask-creationist.htm]

Pacific School of Graduate Studies is not an accredited university. Small institutions in Australia don't hand out degrees themselves - they do so via an accredited body such as, say, Melbourne College of Divinity.

By calling himself "Dr... Phd" he is claiming expert status that he does not have. Lying, in other words. Why would you bother giving any credence to someone who doesn't even present the facts about themselves honestly and with integrity. "lectured in such-and-such college campus" is laughable - anyone can do that!

Your cited article seems somewhat confused about where Pacific College even is - Greater Melbourne (Victoria) or Queensland). That's like confusing Florida with Maine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Now let us consider some other Science, and the Law of Thermodynamics:

Implications of the Law of Thermodynamics - Thomas Kindell, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:
THOMAS KINDELL - IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - YouTube

Scientific Evidences:

Scientific Evidences For A Young Earth - Thomas Kindell, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wishe he were]:
Thomas Kindell - Scientific Evidences For a Young Earth (SCC 2004) - YouTube

Is There A Monkey In Your Family Tree? - Thomas Kindell, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:
Is There a Monkey in Your Family Tree? - Dr. Thomas Kindell - YouTube

Now let us consider also the Universe and Space:

See Homepage: Creation Astronomy | Spike Psarris

"Spike Psarris was previously an engineer in the United States’ military space program. He entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist. He left it as a creationist and a Christian."
- About Spike Psarris

Evolution - What Do They Purposefully Leave Out? - Spike Psarris, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish He were]:
Evolution - What do they Purposely Leave Out? - YouTube

Our Created Universe - Spike Psarris, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish He were]:
Our Created Universe by Spike Psarris - YouTube

Our Solar System - Evidence Of Creation - Spike Psarris, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish He were]:
Our Solar System, Evidence of Creation - Spike Psarris - YouTube

...to be continued...
 
Upvote 0

Blackwater Babe

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2011
7,093
246
United States
✟8,940.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Libertarian
Pacific School of Graduate Studies is not an accredited university. Small institutions in Australia don't hand out degrees themselves - they do so via an accredited body such as, say, Melbourne College of Divinity.

By calling himself "Dr... Phd" he is claiming expert status that he does not have. Lying, in other words. Why would you bother giving any credence to someone who doesn't even present the facts about themselves honestly and with integrity. "lectured in such-and-such college campus" is laughable - anyone can do that!

Your cited article seems somewhat confused about where Pacific College even is - Greater Melbourne (Victoria) or Queensland).

I'VE given lectures at universities! And I'm not an expert in anything!
 
Upvote 0
...Now let us consider also the Universe and Space:

See Homepage: Creation Astronomy | Spike Psarris

"Spike Psarris was previously an engineer in the United States’ military space program. He entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist. He left it as a creationist and a Christian."
- About Spike Psarris ...

...to be continued...

See Also [Spike Psarris]:

[Planet Truths Part 01; Intro]:
Planet Truths 1 - Intro - YouTube

[Planet Truths Part 02; Mercury]:
Planet Truths 2 - Mercury - YouTube

[Planet Truths Part 03; Venus]:
Planet Truths 3 - Venus - YouTube

[Planet Truths Part 04; Earth]:
Planet Truths 4 - Earth - YouTube

[Planet Truths Part 05; Moon]:
Planet Truths 5 - Moon - YouTube

[Planet Truths Part 06; Mars]:
Planet Truths 6 - Mars - YouTube

...to be continued...
 
Upvote 0

Blackwater Babe

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2011
7,093
246
United States
✟8,940.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Libertarian
Now let us consider some other Science, and the Law of Thermodynamics:snip...to be continued...

From the site you link;
Spike Psarris was previously an engineer in the United States’ military space program. He entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist. He left it as a creationist and a Christian.
This site is dedicated to exposing the bankruptcy of the evolutionary model, especially in astronomy.

This site is dedicated to exposing the bankruptcy of the evolutionary model, especially in ... ASTRONOMY!

*gigglesnort*
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
See Also [Spike Psarris]:

...to be continued...
[Planet Truths Part 07; Jupiter]:
Planet Truths 7 - Jupiter - YouTube

[Planet Truths Part 08; Saturn]:
Planet Truths 8 - Saturn - YouTube

[Planet Truths Part 09; Uranus]:
Planet Truths 9 - Uranus - YouTube

[Planet Truths Part 10; Neptune]:
Planet Truths 10 - Neptune - YouTube

[Planet Truths Part 11; Comets]:
Planet Truths 11 - Comets - YouTube

[Planet Truths Part 12; Conclusion]:
Planet Truths 12 - Conclusion - YouTube

...now, let us talk more about these stars and universe...
 
Upvote 0
I'VE given lectures at universities! And I'm not an expert in anything!
We will go with your own words. Please consider the evidences, thank you. There is of course much more to come, not in video format [but later in].
 
Upvote 0

Blackwater Babe

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2011
7,093
246
United States
✟8,940.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Libertarian
We will go with your own words. Please consider the evidences, thank you. There is of course much more to come, not in video format [but later in].
Of someone who wants to disprove the evolutionary component of astronomy? *snort* I'll be right, thanks.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
3 Angels Messages said:
We will go with your own words. Please consider the evidences, thank you. There is of course much more to come, not in video format [but later in].

Why waste one's time listening to people who are prepared to misrepresent their own qualifications or who's headline is absurd? The former is likely to be lying about other stuff as well, and the latter clearly doesn't understand the basics of the subjects.

I'd rather get my information from people with real expertise and a track record of truthfulness.

Why is it that creationism is so dependent on people who misrepresent their expertise?
 
Upvote 0
He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by [their] names. [Psalms 147:4]

Using current 'known' [or accepted by the proponents [evolutionary/great time]] figures,

How many estimated stars are there in the known observable universe as of today?

As of 2010,


"A 2010 star count estimate was 300 sextillion (3 × 10^23) in the observable universe.[76]" - [Borenstein, Seth (December 1, 2010). "Universe's Star Count Could Triple". CBS News. Retrieved 2011-07-14.] - Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

300 sextillion looks like this: 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

What then as of today? What is the current 'scientific' estimate? Do any have a current source for it, and is it more or less than 2010 estimate?

According to 'big bang' cosmogony [originating from 'Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître', a Roman Catholic priest, receiving training from a classical education at a Jesuit secondary school (Collège du Sacré-Coeur, Charleroi)], stars first 'formed/evolved' from various 'condensed/collapsed gasses' after, roughly est., 3-5 billions of years had passed since the 'singularity' first/again 'expanded', being roughly estimated by the proponents of this origin, at 13.7 [min.] to 20 [max.] billion years ago.

"... The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Univese.[1] According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the young Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, this original state existed approximately 13.7 billion years ago,[2][3] which is considered the age of the Universe and the time the Big Bang occurred.[4][5] After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles. It would take thousands of years for some of these particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) to combine and form atoms, the building blocks of matter. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Eventually, clouds of hydrogen would coalesce through gravity to form stars, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae. ..." [Big Bang; Wikipedia] - Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"We have known for more than a decade that in the early universe -- three to five billion years after the Big Bang or nine to eleven billion years before today -- galaxies churned out new stars at a much faster rate than they do now," said Michael Cooper, a postdoctoral Spitzer fellow at the UA's Steward Observatory." [Science Daily, (Feb. 16, 2010)] - Why today's galaxies don't make as many stars as they used to

So, at roughly averaged estimates proposed by the proponents of the cosmogony [cosmological origins], approximately 10 billion years ago, stars began to form through such 'processes' as mentioned above by those same proponents of the 'big bang' cosmological model, which continued in those same ['uniformitarian'] 'processes' until we arrive at the current number of stars est. [300 sextillion] known to exist in the known observable universe.

The question of this particular cosmological model then becomes a mathematical one of viability. Do the mathematical results in finality support the model in the least, or do they shed some very damaging and unwanted light upon the subbject?

Before we consider the results of the mathematics, and what it would mean for the model itself, let us consider a few more statements from the currently accepted proponents in their fields:

"Scientists from the Niels Bohr Institute have been studying distant galaxies, which are among the most active star-forming galaxies in the Universe. They form around 1,000 new stars a year -- a 1,000 times more than our own galaxy, the Milky Way." [Science Daily, (Oct. 12, 2010)] - Wild 'teenage' galaxies booming with star births

So, according to that data, if accepted, it shows according to the proponents data, that the most active star-forming galaxies in the universe form only 1,000 new stars a year, and our own galaxy way less than that, to about 1 star birth per year. This is why even in the 'journals' it is a rare thing to see written upon, and great fanfare is then made when yet another is 'found'.

"...For comparison, the Milky Way has taken a thousand times longer to double its stellar population. ..." [Science Daily, (Nov. 10, 2011)] - Hubble uncovers tiny galaxies bursting with starbirth in early Universe

So, going back to the math on this, we begin with the numbers broadest average allowed for:

300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [300 sextillion stars, minimum] - The Estimated Number of Stars in the Universe Just Tripled | 80beats | Discover Magazine
---------------------------------------- [divided by the number of available years]
20,000,000,000 [20 Billion years, maximum]

= 15,000,000,000,000 [15 Trillion] stars/year [supposedly formed in known observable universe],


or [using the 365.25 days per year] = 41,067,761,806.982 [41.1 Billion est] stars/day

or [using 24 hours est. per day] = 1,711,156,741.958 [1.71 Billion est] stars/hour

or [using 60 minutes per hour] = 28,519,279.033 [28.52 Million est] stars/minute

or [using 60 seconds per minute] = 475,321.32 [475.3 Thousand est] stars/second

...and we come up with answers [of stars supposedly formed per year, etc in the known observable universe] that is not observable in any of the known fields, or at any point of the model... and impossible according to the 'big bang' cosmogony timelines.

I do not believe in any of the 'big bang' cosmogony.

The mathematics become even more complicated and stretched beyond farcical limits when the 'expansion' of space/time is included, and compared to current 'gravitational' or even 'red-shift' models. How can you even begin to speak about 'coalesence' when space/time is currently thought to be expanding, that would include even the particulates, which far exceeds 'gravitational' allowances. We cannot speak of 'expansion' and 'coalesence' simultaneously if space/time is indeed expanding. The current models are usually cited as a deflated 'balloon' [space/time] covered in 'pennies', which when 'expanded' the 'pennies' [galaxies,etc] remain coalesced, but this is mere illusion, and not real to the science of 'expansion' of sopace/time, for in reality the 'pennies' themselves would 'expand' just as 'fast' as well until there was nothing such as a 'penny' to discuss of, and it also automatically assumes a coalesced 'penny' to begin with. How can you begin with the coalesence when space/time expands to begin with [even according to the model, many times faster than 'light speed' at origins], and all things expand further and further from each point in space/time from one another? Another example as seen on wiki - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Raisinbread.gif, is the 'expanding' loaf of 'raisin bread', while the 'loaf' expands the 'raisins' for whatever reason do not, though they are part of the space/time.

Again, merely illusion to explain a serious defect in the 'big bang' cosmogony... for it seeks to merely gloss over the issue.

...it will also be seen to violate 'conservation of energy' principles...

I hope that these things are considered... and to consider more, please definitely see further evidence at Orion Foundation, subsections, Ten Censored Scientific Papers or for video discussion, a must see:

[Center Of The Universe - Dr. Robert V. Gentry, A Seventh Day Adventist - yes!]
:
[part 1] - Center of the Universe, Extended Discussion, Part 1

[part 2] - Center of the Universe, Extended Discussion, Part 2

Or see a shorter version see:


[Part 1]
Robert Gentry--- The Center of the Universe Part 1 - YouTube

[Part 2]
Robert Gentry--- The Center of the Universe Part 2 - YouTube

[Part 3]
Robert Gentry--- The Center of the Universe Part 3 - YouTube

...to be continued...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
This Robert Gentry? :

"His self-published book Creation's Tiny Mystery was reviewed by geologist Gregg Wilkerson, who said that it has several logical flaws and concluded that "the book is a source of much misinformation about current geologic thinking and confuses fact with interpretation." He also noted that the book contains considerable autobiographical material and he observed that "n general I don't think educators will find its worth their time to tread through this creationist's whining."[7] This criticism of Gentry's "frequent whining about discrimination" has also been made by fellow creationists, who concluded that "his scientific snubs resulted more from his own abrasive style than from his peculiar ideas", according to Ronald L. Numbers, a prominent historian of science.[1]"
 
Upvote 0
...to be continued...
...Again, I cite the math:

"300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [300 sextillion stars, minimum]
---------------------------------------- [divided by the number of available years]
20,000,000,000 [20 Billion years, maximum]

= 15,000,000,000,000 [15 Trillion] stars/year [supposedly formed in known observable universe],

or [using the 365.25 days per year] = 41,067,761,806.982 [41.1 Billion est] stars/day

or [using 24 hours est. per day] = 1,711,156,741.958 [1.71 Billion est] stars/hour

or [using 60 minutes per hour] = 28,519,279.033 [28.52 Million est] stars/minute

or [using 60 seconds per minute] = 475,321.32 [475.3 Thousand est] stars/second"


Hmmm, 15 Trillion [mathematics currently reveals] or 100 Billion [2004 est]... this is not even close...


[*]
"There are probably more than 170 billion (1.7 × 10^11) galaxies in the observable universe.[8][9]" [Wikipedia, Galaxy] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

It only gets worse the more things are looked at.

The number cannot merely fall between, as we are speaking of the overall "averages" of the total observable galaxies, and keep in mind that here was what was previously cited about the "average" 'Milky Way' Galaxy:

"How many stars are born and die each day?

I am a science teacher who would like to know how many stars are born and how may die each day.

We usually talk of star formation in terms of the gas mass that is converted into stars each year. We call this the star formation rate. In the Milky Way right now, the star formation rate is about 3 solar masses per year (i.e. three times the mass of the Sun's worth of star is produced each year). The stars formed can either be more or less massive than the Sun, though less massive stars are more numerous.
So roughly if we assume that on average the stars formed have the same mass as the Sun, then the Milky Way produces about 3 new stars per year. People often approximate this by saying there is about 1 new star per year.

Now what about the rate at which stars die? In typical galaxies like the Milky Way, a massive star should end its life as a supernova about every 100 years. Less massive stars (like the Sun) end their lives as planetary nebulae, leading to the formation of white dwarfs.
There are about one of these per year.

Therefore we get on average about one new star per year, and one star dying each year as a planetary nebula in the Milky Way. These rates are different in different types of galaxies, but you can say that this is roughly the average over all galaxies in the Universe. We estimate at about 100 billion the number of galaxies in the observable Universe, therefore there are about 100 billion stars being born and dying each year, which corresponds to about 275 million per day, in the whole observable Universe." [curious.astro.cornell.edu; November 2004, Amelie Saintonge] - http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=644

Since the above data is as of 2004, and the observable galaxies is est. now at roughly 170-200 Billion
[*]
, allowance for a small shift in end results is allowed of stars/year, but even with this allowance it still cannot account for the mathematics related.

Let us consider more figures:

300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [300 sextillion stars in observable universe]
--------------------------------------------- [divided by number of available years]
13,700,000,000 [13.7 billion years, standard]

= 21,897,810,218,978.1022- [21.9 est trillion] stars per year [observable universe]

--------------------------------------------- [divided by the number of observable galaxies, 100 billion]
218.978- [stars [on average] forming per galaxy/per year]

--------------------------------------------- [divided by the number of observable galaxies, 170 billion]
128.811- [stars [on average] forming per galaxy/per year]

--------------------------------------------- [divided by the number of observable galaxies, 185 billion]
118.367- [stars [on average] forming per galaxy/per year]

--------------------------------------------- [divided by the number of observable galaxies, 200 billion]
109.489- [stars [on average] forming per galaxy/per year]

Each s/p/y/p/g number in this example a constant unfluctuating [unrealistic, averaging here] rate among all known observable galaxies in the known universe, if all galaxies existed, and continued to exist, at 13.7 b/y/a and each galaxy continued to produce at the above rates for the entire duration of existence. These calculations do not include 'star deaths'.

"...of average giant galaxies like our Milky Way." [Wikipedia; Quasar]

"Since
the Milky Way is considered an "average" galaxy, much of what we learn can be directly applied to other galaxies. ... Our galaxy is an "average" galaxy ... " [astronomyonline.org/ourgalaxy~]

"... Our own Milky Way galaxy seems to contain about 200 billion stars; and we’re actually about average number of stars. ..." [universetoday.com; how many stars; by Fraser Cain on January 28, 2009]

"...1. (GALAXY SIZE) The
average Galaxy has 100-200 billion Stars (most similar to our sun) encircling the center. ... " [motodom.com/galaxy]

OR

300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [300 sextillion stars]
--------------------------------------------- [divided by number of available years]
20,000,000,000 [20 billion years, maximum]

= 15,000,000,000,000 [15 Trillion] stars/year [supposedly formed in known observable universe]

--------------------------------------------- [divided by the number of observable galaxies, 100 billion]
150 [stars [on average] forming per galaxy/per year]

--------------------------------------------- [divided by the number of observable galaxies, 170 billion]
88.235- [stars [on average] forming per galaxy/per year]

--------------------------------------------- [divided by the number of observable galaxies, 185 billion]
81.081- [stars [on average] forming per galaxy/per year]

--------------------------------------------- [divided by the number of observable galaxies, 200 billion]
75 [stars [on average] forming per galaxy/per year]

At 20 b/y/a:

So, it is not a matter of looking at the end figure and say that it falls within the 1-4000 s/p/y ranges. it is a matter of total averages. Please consider a few tests:

[TEST]

1 in a 1000, 10,000 [test ratio]

10 producing large [4,000 stars per year for total observable galactic] = 40,000
+
9,990 producing average [1 stars per year for total observable galactic] = 9,990
-------------------------------------------
Total [10,000; Ten Thousand Total Galaxies; 49,990 Forty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety s/p/y/f/t/o/g]

[END TEST]

[Low End Test]

1 in a 1,000, 100,000,000,000 [100 billion galaxies; low end range]

100,000,000 producing large [4,000 stars per year for total observable galactic]
+
99,900,000,000 producing average [1 stars per year for total observable galactic]
------------------------------------------------------
Total [100,000,000,000; 100 billion]

100,000,000 [p/l] x 4,000 [s/p/y] = 400,000,000,000 [400 billion stars per year for total observable galactic]
+
99,900,000,000 [p/a] x 1 [s/p/y] = 99,900,000,000 [99.9 billion stars per year for total observable galactic]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [100,000,000,000; 100 billion; 499,900,000,000; 499.9 billion s/p/y/f/t/o/g]

499,900,000,000 [499.9 billion s/p/y/f/t/o/g]
13,700,000,000 [13.7 billion years, standard]

--------------------------------------------------------- [multiplied together]
6,848,630,000,000,000,000,000 [6.849 sextillion stars total] Nowhere close to 300 sextillion.

499,900,000,000 [499.9 billion s/p/y/f/t/o/g]
20,000,000,000 [20 billion years, maximum]

-------------------------------------------------------- [multiplied together]
9,998,000,000,000,000,000,000 [9.998 sextillion stars total] Again, nowhere close to 300 sextillion.

[END Low End Test]

[High End Test]

1 in a 1000, 500,000,000,000 [500 billion galaxies; abundant maximum range]

100,000,000 producing large [4,000 stars per year for total observable galactic]
+
499,900,000,000 producing average [1 stars per year for total observable galactic]
------------------------------------------------------
Total [500,000,000,000; 500 billion]


500,000,000 [p/l] x 4,000 [s/p/y] = 2,000,000,000,000 [2 trillion stars per year for total observable galactic]
+
499,500,000,000 [p/a] x 1 [s/p/y] = 499,500,000,000 [499.5 billion stars per year for total observable galactic]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [500,000,000,000; 500 billion; 2.5 trillion [est+] s/p/y/f/t/o/g]


2,500,000,000,000 [2.5 trillion [est+] s/p/y/f/t/o/g]
13,700,000,000 [13.7 billion years, standard]

--------------------------------------------------------- [multiplied together]
34,250,000,000,000,000,000,000 [34.25 sextillion stars total] Nowhere close to 300 sextillion.

2,500,000,000,000 [2.5 trillion [est+] s/p/y/f/t/o/g]
20,000,000,000 [20 billion years, maximum]

-------------------------------------------------------- [multiplied together]
50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [50 sextillion stars total] Again, nowhere close to 300 sextillion.

[END High End Test]

Again, none of these numbers are counting the ratios of those stars that supposedly existed and have since 'passed away'. To include them would greatly increase these numbers.

[TEST]

1 in a 100, 10,000 [test ratio]

100 producing large [4,000 stars per year for total observable galactic] = 400,000
+
9,900 producing average [1 stars per year for total observable galactic] = 9,900
-------------------------------------------
Total [10,000; Ten Thousand Total Galaxies; 409,900 Four Hundred Nine Thousand Nine Hundred s/p/y/f/t/o/g]

[END TEST]


[Low End Test]

1 in a 100, 100,000,000,000 [100 billion; low end range]

1,000,000,000 producing large [4,000 stars per year for total observable galactic]
+
99,000,000,000 producing average [1 stars per year for total observable galactic]
------------------------------------------------------
Total [100,000,000,000; 100 billion]

1,000,000,000 [p/l] x 4,000 [s/p/y] = 4,000,000,000,000 [4 trillion stars per year for total observable galactic]
+
99,000,000,000 [p/a] x 1 [s/p/y] = 99,000,000,000 [99 billion stars per year for total observable galactic]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [100,000,000,000; 100 billion; 4,099,000,000,000; 4.099 trillion s/p/y/f/t/o/g]

4,099,000,000,000 [4.099 trillion s/p/y/f/t/o/g]
13,700,000,000 [13.7 billion years, standard]

--------------------------------------------------------- [multiplied together]
56,156,300,000,000,000,000,000 [56.1563 sextillion stars total] Nowhere close to 300 sextillion.

4,099,000,000,000 [4.099 trillion s/p/y/f/t/o/g]
20,000,000,000 [20 billion years, maximum]

-------------------------------------------------------- [multiplied together]
81,980,000,000,000,000,000,000 [81.98 sextillion stars total] Again, nowhere close to 300 sextillion.


[Extreme High End Test; not observable]

1 in a 100, 500,000,000,000 [500 billion; abundant maximum range]

5,000,000,000 producing large [4,000 stars per year for total observable galactic]
+
495,000,000,000 producing average [1 stars per year for total observable galactic]
------------------------------------------------------
Total [500,000,000,000; 500 billion]


5,000,000,000 [p/l] x 4,000 [s/p/y] = 20,000,000,000,000 [20 trillion stars per year for total observable galactic]
+
495,000,000,000 [p/a] x 1 [s/p/y] = 499,500,000,000 [499.5 billion stars per year for total observable galactic]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [500,000,000,000; 500 billion; 20.5 trillion [est+] s/p/y/f/t/o/g]


20,500,000,000,000 [20.5 trillion [est+] s/p/y/f/t/o/g]
13,700,000,000 [13.7 billion years, standard]

--------------------------------------------------------- [multiplied together]
280,850,000,000,000,000,000,000 [280.85 sextillion stars total] Getting close to 300 sextillion.

20,500,000,000,000 [20.5 trillion [est+] s/p/y/f/t/o/g]
20,000,000,000 [20 billion years, maximum]

-------------------------------------------------------- [multiplied together]
410,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [410 sextillion stars total] Exceeds 300 sextillion by 110 sextilion.

Huge problems mathematically, especially on the "averages", even as a minimum average. And we are not even considering the possibility of 'stars we don't know about', or 'star deaths' in these figures...
 
Upvote 0
This Robert Gentry? :

"His self-published book Creation's Tiny Mystery was reviewed by geologist Gregg Wilkerson, who said that it has several logical flaws and concluded that "the book is a source of much misinformation about current geologic thinking and confuses fact with interpretation." He also noted that the book contains considerable autobiographical material and he observed that "n general I don't think educators will find its worth their time to tread through this creationist's whining."[7] This criticism of Gentry's "frequent whining about discrimination" has also been made by fellow creationists, who concluded that "his scientific snubs resulted more from his own abrasive style than from his peculiar ideas", according to Ronald L. Numbers, a prominent historian of science.[1]"
We will come to this in a bit [please be patient] and thoroughly show the published work of Dr. Robert V. Gentry to be scientifically unrefuted.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
3 Angels Messages said:
We will come to this in a bit [please be patient] and thoroughly show the published work of Dr. Robert V. Gentry to be scientifically unrefuted.

I'm not sure what that even means, let alone how you could show it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
A bit more on Cosmogony:

Let us consider another question, according to 'big bang' cosmogony, the earliest [assumed] 'stars' [ie. theoretical Population III] would be entirely made up of the lightest elements, without any of the heavier elements in them at all ...

"...a hypothetical extinct population of extremely massive and hot stars with virtually no surface metals, except for a small quantity of metals formed in the Big Bang, such as lithium-7. ..." [Wikipedia; Metallicity - ]Metallicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...Their [Pop. III] existence is proposed to account for the fact that heavy elements, which could not have been created in the Big Bang, ..." [Wikipedia; Metallicity - ]Metallicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the young Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, this original state existed approximately 13.7 billion years ago,[2][3] which is considered the age of the Universe and the time the Big Bang occurred.[4][5] After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles. It would take thousands of years for some of these particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) to combine and form atoms, the building blocks of matter. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Eventually, clouds of hydrogen would coalesce through gravity to form stars, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae." [Wikipedia; Big Bang - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang]

"From left: Recent cosmological studies show that the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago. The metal-poor star HE 1523 formed in our Milky Way galaxy soon afterward, cosmologically speaking: 13.2 billion years ago. The primitive star contained the radioactive heavy elements uranium and thorium, and the amounts of those elements decay over time, each according to its own half-life. Today, astronomer Anna Frebel of the the University of Texas at Austin McDonald Observatory and her colleagues have deduced the star´s age based on the amounts of radioactive elements it contains compared to certain other "anchor" elements, specifically europium, osmium and iridium. The study of the star´s chemical make-up was made using the UVES spectrograph on the Kueyen Telescope, part of ESO´s Very Large Telescope, at Paranal, in Chile. Credit: (c) ESO

How old are the oldest stars" Using ESO's VLT, astronomers recently measured the age of a star located in our Galaxy. The star, a real fossil, is found to be 13.2 billion years old, not very far from the 13.7 billion years age of the Universe. The star, HE 1523-0901, was clearly born at the dawn of time."
[Physorg - ]A galactic fossil: Star is found to be 13.2 billion years old

Notice the supposed age of that 'star' [13.2 billion/y/o], and what elements is supposedly contains [heavy elements], even at the very beginning stages of the 'Big Bang' cosmogony. That defies the 'Big Bang' cosmological model.

"...Three to four hundred thousand years may have passed before continuing cosmological expansion and cooling enabled atomic nuclei to hold onto electrons and create neutral hydrogen and helium gas (along with a trace of lithium at around a redshift of z ~ 1,000). Measurements of the modern universe suggest that, by mass, about three-fourths of the ordinary matter formed from the Big Bang became hydrogen while virtually all of the rest became helium; by number, around nine-tenths of all atoms may still be hydrogen, while roughly nine percent has become helium. ..." [http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/first.htm]

[As a side note, notice the very same terminology used in the Cosmogony, stellar "evolution", "real fossil", etc]

Additionally, speaking of spacial 'expansion':

Why would the particles, supposedly present at origins of 'Big Bang', combine in the first place since space was 'expanding', even supposedly many times faster than that of the speed of light at origins of 'Big Bang'?

Gravitational 'pull', electromagnetism, etc would be so weak in comparison due to distance between, even if for some reason the 'particle' itself could not itself 'expand':

"...the space between them would, leading to a point where the 3 non-gravity forces would no longer hold matter together due to distance..." []particle physics - Why does space expansion not expand matter? - Physics - Stack Exchange

"Inflationary cosmology ... in the early phase of the universe, it went through a phase called inflation, during which period, the universe expanded by a factor of more than 10^50 in a time-scale of less than 10^-30 seconds. ... a period of expansion faster than the speed of light. But as you can see, the evidence is quite indirect and not something that we can directly see." [November 2001, Jagadheep D. Pandian; ]Curious About Astronomy: Could the Universe have expanded faster than the speed of light at the Big Bang?

Gases equalize in a vacuum, they do not coalesce, and much less do they coalesce in a scenario of spacial expansion.
 
Upvote 0