Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?

[USincognito]

Did you read carefully? I see a lot of wishful thinking.
Belief. Not science.

If semantics are all you have...

Trust me, they know it. Here is one of the most honest quotes.

Ah, a quote mine. How impressive.

 

[lesliedellow]

"A star is born when atoms of light elements are squeezed under enough pressure for their nuclei to undergo fusion."
How is a star born?

How do you get such a weak force as gravity to gather
enough gas together in space, with nothing to constrain
it, and put it under enough pressure to make it collapse
into a gas planet, much less a star?

The most basic gas equations tell you it's impossible.
Star Formation

And it only gets worse. Early in big bang time, all the
matter and energy were travelling apart from each other
at nearly the speed of light. There is no way they got close
enough for gravity to affect them. So, where did the early
stars come from?

So the state of astrophysics fifty years ago settles the question, does it? I suppose that is a marginal improvement upon creationists’ common practice, of using the state of evolutionary theory 160 years ago as a basis for their arguments.

Lecture 12: Star Formation

 

[TCassidy]

No, you just brought up a gap that literally isn't there.

No, I showed that the gap theory was impossible according to the narrative.

The gap you see doesn't matter, except to say that, for some reason, God could have just let the earth set alone, unfinished
for an unspecified period of time.

I don't see a gap. And God could have done a lot of things, but I don't believe He did. Of course, you are free to believe anything you like, including the false "gap theory."

Why do you think he would have done that and then specified that the rest of creation took six days about six thousand years ago?

I don't.

 

[tas8831]

To be fair, it's not really circular reasoning. It assumes the premise that Genesis was written by God and is a 100% accurate literal account of creation.

Oval reasoning?

 

[pat34lee]

If semantics are all you have...

Ah, a quote mine. How impressive.

I would bet that you didn't bother to look at the links
I posted, much less read them. It's a shame when people
don't even pretend to want to learn anything.

 

[pat34lee]

So the state of astrophysics fifty years ago settles the question, does it? I suppose that is a marginal improvement upon creationists’ common practice, of using the state of evolutionary theory 160 years ago as a basis for their arguments.

Lecture 12: Star Formation

Ok. Lets try it.

"To convert a dense core into a star, we must both compress it (decreasing R by a factor of 4,400,000) and heat it (increasing T by a factor of 580)."

"To convert lead into gold, we need pixie dust." Where do you get it?

How do you propose to both compress gas in space and heat it up,
which will increase the motion and dispersal of the gas which is not
constrained? It can't be done be gravity or any known natural force.

"Dense interstellar clouds are ordinarily stable. To start their collapse, we must first compress them with a shock wave traveling through the interstellar medium. One source of shock waves is supernovas (exploding stars). "

Another magic bean. A supernova, instead of scattering the gas,
causes it to collapse? Only in some astronomer's dream.

 

[pat34lee]

No, I showed that the gap theory was impossible according to the narrative.

Why bring it up at all then, in such a confusing way?
Your post appeared to be defending the gap.

 

[lesliedellow]

Ok. Lets try it.

"To convert a dense core into a star, we must both compress it (decreasing R by a factor of 4,400,000) and heat it (increasing T by a factor of 580)."

"To convert lead into gold, we need pixie dust." Where do you get it?

How do you propose to both compress gas in space and heat it up,
which will increase the motion and dispersal of the gas which is not
constrained? It can't be done be gravity or any known natural force.

"Dense interstellar clouds are ordinarily stable. To start their collapse, we must first compress them with a shock wave traveling through the interstellar medium. One source of shock waves is supernovas (exploding stars). "

Another magic bean. A supernova, instead of scattering the gas,
causes it to collapse? Only in some astronomer's dream.

Dunning Kruger again. Doubtless you are fully qualified to become the next Astronomer Royal. Not to mention the Nobel Prize you are going to win bydemonstrating how wrong everybody else, really qualified, has been for all these years.

Besides, Justatruthseeker is going to be suing you for breach of copyright, in stealing his favourite “pixie dust” piece of vacuity.

 

[pat34lee]

Appeal to authority fallacy is when someone uses expertise in one field to support expertise in another. For example, using the opinion of a lawyer, engineer or chemist in matters of biology would be an appeal to authority.

No, your example here is an Appeal to False Authority
(also known as: appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority)

Appeal to Authority
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.
Appeal to Authority

 

[pat34lee]

Dunning Kruger again. Doubtless you are fully qualified to become the next Astronomer Royal. Not to mention the Nobel Prize you are going to win by demonstrating how wrong everybody else, really qualified, has been for all these years.

Besides, Justatruthseeker is going to be suing you for breach of copyright, in stealing his favourite “pixie dust” piece of vacuity.

You didn't answer my questions. No problem.
I don't think they can be answered, except in
a hypothetical (fictional) way.

I doubt that he used the pixie dust before me.
Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

 

[lesliedellow]

No, your example here is an Appeal to False Authority
(also known as: appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority)

Appeal to Authority
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.
Appeal to Authority

Tell me, oh wise one, if you needed heart surgery, would you listen to the opinion of the taxi driver who drove you to the hospital, or to the opinion of the cardiac surgeon you saw when you got there?

 

[lesliedellow]

You didn't answer my questions. No problem.
I don't think they can be answered, except in
a hypothetical (fictional) way.

To cut and paste:
“Tell me, oh wise one, if you needed heart surgery, would you listen to the opinion of the taxi driver who drove you to the hospital, or to the opinion of the cardiac surgeon you saw when you got there?”

 

[pat34lee]

Tell me, oh wise one, if you needed heart surgery, would you listen to the opinion of the taxi driver who drove you to the hospital, or to the opinion of the cardiac surgeon you saw when you got there?

If you were to ask both and accept the word of
the good doctor just because he's a doctor, then
you have committed the fallacy.

The doctor may be a quack and the cab driver may
be a last year medical student. Even if not, there is
always a chance that the doctor is just wrong.

And it still doesn't answer my questions on star formation.

 

[lesliedellow]

If you were to ask both and accept the word of
the good doctor just because he's a doctor, then
you have committed the fallacy.

Then I trust you will remember to act on your own philosophy when you really do have a serious medical condition.

 

[TCassidy]

Why bring it up at all then, in such a confusing way?

To show, from the narrative, that the gap theory is impossible.

Your post appeared to be defending the gap.

Then you have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[TCassidy]

It can't be done be gravity or any known natural force.

Actually it can be done by gravity. And is. Look at Jupiter and Saturn.

In 1966 Dr. Frank Low measured the heat being given off by Jupiter and found that it was 1.9 times the heat being received from the sun. The cause is contraction due to Jupiter's very powerful gravity which both compresses and heats the planet.

I don't want to sound unkind but this is about 4th grade General Science stuff.

 

[pitabread]

No, your example here is an Appeal to False Authority
(also known as: appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority)

Appeal to Authority
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.
Appeal to Authority

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Regardless, my OP is not an Appeal to Authority. At no point was I making the argument that evolution is 'true' because a biologist (in this case Todd Wood) says it is true.

Rather, I was pointing to the fact he is one of the few creationists who recognizes the reality of science (namely that evolution *is* supposed by evidence regardless of most creationists claims to the contrary). I find it odd that so many creationists deny the reality of the situation they are up against.

 

[pat34lee]

To show, from the narrative, that the gap theory is impossible.

Then you have a reading comprehension problem.

No, but I can't read what you intend, only what is written.
Go back and reread your own post and see.

 

[pat34lee]

Actually it can be done by gravity. And is. Look at Jupiter and Saturn.

In 1966 Dr. Frank Low measured the heat being given off by Jupiter and found that it was 1.9 times the heat being received from the sun. The cause is contraction due to Jupiter's very powerful gravity which both compresses and heats the planet.

I don't want to sound unkind but this is about 4th grade General Science stuff.

What does Jupiter have to do with gases in space becoming stars?

 

[pat34lee]

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Regardless, my OP is not an Appeal to Authority. At no point was I making the argument that evolution is 'true' because a biologist (in this case Todd Wood) says it is true.

Rather, I was pointing to the fact he is one of the few creationists who recognizes the reality of science (namely that evolution *is* supposed by evidence regardless of most creationists claims to the contrary). I find it odd that so many creationists deny the reality of the situation they are up against.

The only 'science' for the past is history. Nothing in the past can be
proven or disproven without eyewitness testimony or second or third
hand information. Nothing in fossil evidence can ever prove that
evolution happened or that any fossil is related to another.
The bones only show a creature lived.