Why stellar evolution theory is false

Martyrs44 · Jul 1, 2012

Blackwater Babe said:
Which has nothing to do with galactic formation.

And stellar evolution and evolution, are not interchangeable terms.

Deal with the facts I delivered in the OP and stop nit picking, please.

Besides that: evolution IS involved and the scientists at Harvard say so:

life in the thinning and
cooling of the universe.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

metherion · Jul 1, 2012

Wow, its been a long time since I saw such blatantly displays of dishonesty.

Yeah, he should be after all that nonsense he just laid out. I could easily answer each point with no problem but I'd rather see if any of my creationist brethren or other seeking inquirers have questions about what he said. I said I wasn't going to waste time debating them but if others wish to ask about his particulars I am ready to answer.

Uh huh. The old ITS SO EASY TO KNOCK THIS GUY OVER THAT I WONT BOTHER canard. So youve got nothing. Nice.

He just lied. Every word of the Bible is God's Word. II Timothy 3:16. Some of it was dictated directly and some were words God merely put into the minds of the authors of holy writ. But his attitude is precisely why he is in deep error concerning origins and the real nature of Genesis. The fact that he dismissed those verses I quoted reveals the cheap view of scripture he has.

No. Every part of the Bible is Gods word. Little w. Big W is Jesus. And Timothy 3:16 talks about inspiration, NOT dictation, and among the things it lists the Bible as good for, scientific understanding of the universe is absent.

So Asimov, Hawking, Sagan, Blum, Feynmen, Hubble, & all the evolutionist sources I have quoted are the wrong places. Right. But unlike him, I use my critical thinking skills to discern fact from fiction.

Dishonesty #1: Youve quoted two words out of context from Sagan, and NOBODY ELSE ON THAT LIST here.

nd somehow he thinks that those most distant galaxies have not aged beyond the two or three spins it takes to begin dissipation and a few million yrs that it takes to spin out? (from their assumption of course that their time frame is correct).

Just another example as to how they want us to swallow their nonsense hook, line, and sinker just as they did.

Nope. I hit on this earlier and you completely ignored it. You are totally misunderstanding what was said.

We see light from a 9 billion LY away galaxy. The light is 9 billion years old. So we see that light that comes from 9 billion years ago. We dont know the state of that galaxy NOW, because we only see its state from 9 billion years ago. It could have stopped being a spiral galaxy in that time. We wont know until 9 billion years after it stopped, because thats how long the light showing the transition to a not-spiral galaxy will take to get to us.

The skeptics are implying strongly that the winding problem is not really a problem after all...despite the fact that their companions in evolution tell us that it is. Let me repeat what they said for any late-comers who might have missed the significance of what was said:

Dishonesty #2
And yet, both .edu websites you have QUOTE MINED specifically tell of the density wave theory (laymans use, not scientific use, because Im not aware of its actual scientific status).

Oh, and by the way, when the author says this is not well understood, though., if you actually READ THE WEBSITE, he is talking about what causes the Milky Ways own spiral arms.

Furthermore, you quote:

Quote: "it looks like a spiral pattern, what's wrong with that? It happens too fast. It happens in a few rotation periods (say, half a billion years). The age of the Universe is something like 10-15 billion years -- if spirals made their arms this way, they should all be so tightly wrapped we wouldn't see them as spiral arms anymore!"

What is the VERY NEXT LINE FROM THE WEBSITE YOU CITE? 

So spiral arms can't be physical objects. What else could they be?

Click to expand...

HRM. Almost looks as if youre trying to make the article say something it isnt. Almost looks like youre trying to make the article say that the winding problem is actually a problem, and not that the winding problem means what was once thought is now wrong, but hey, heres what we actually know about how things work.

Oh, hey, and what was the previous line?

Spiral rotation curves are not"solid body" rotation curves. What would a solid body rotation curve look like?
Spiral rotation curves are flat: Vc ~ constant. Therefore the angular rotation rate goes like Vc/r, so that the outer edge takes longer to complete an orbit than the inner regions.
So no solid arm could last very long -- it would quickly get "wound up":

Click to expand...

So, the whole winding problem only is a problem if you assume that the arms act like a solid body rotation curve. The winding problem ISNT a problem, so obviously theyre not a solid body rotation curve. Bam. Simple. Done. Its something else. Youre just harping on that idea over and over and ignoring what is both above AND below what you choose to quote.

Thats three quote mines there from that same article.

Besides that: evolution IS involved and the scientists at Harvard say so:

Click to expand...

Dishonestly #3. Did you even LOOK at the picture beyond the little bit you snipped out? You should. If you did, you would see that it lists the following types of evolution:
Cosmic
Galactic
Stellar
Planetary
Chemical
Biological
Cultural
Future

So really? Stellar evolution and Darwinian evolution are interchangeable or even related? Nope. Not so much. You quote mined a freaking PICTURE, which means you had to look at the WHOLE PICTURE, see only what you wanted to, cut out only what you wanted to, and paste only what you wanted to to give a misleading impression.

Really, havent you ever heard of not bearing false witness? Quote mining is lying, and for all the Bible verses you tend to throw out, you seem to ignore a few with startling regularity.

Metherion

gluadys · Jul 1, 2012

Martyrs44 said:
Sometimes, friends, they just leave my mouth hanging open with utter disbelief.

And somehow he thinks that those most distant galaxies have not aged beyond the two or three spins it takes to begin dissipation and a few million yrs that it takes to spin out? (from their assumption of course that their time frame is correct).

<edit>

I did not say distant galaxies have not aged.

I said, we can't see any aging in those galaxies until 9 billion years after it happens, because they are 9 billion light years away. Any information we have as to the state of a distant star is about that state as it was when the light left it to begin its journey to us.

9 billion years from today, we will learn what their actual state today is. (Of course, there probably won't be any earth for the light to come to by then.)

The spiral galaxies were created by God in spiral formation and most of them still exhibit a young age...no matter how far out they are now from our present vantage point.

Of course they exhibit a young age--an age that is nine billion years younger than the date on today's calendar.

samaus12345 · Jul 1, 2012

So the very fact we can see spiral arms Martyr, and based on whats said they *should* be gone after .x billion years? PROVES they arnt billions of years old? My head hurts a bit

Blackwater Babe · Jul 1, 2012

Martyrs44 said:
Deal with the facts I delivered in the OP and stop nit picking, please.

Besides that: evolution IS involved and the scientists at Harvard say so:

life in the thinning and
cooling of the universe.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

Pointing out that stars are not subject to biological evolutionary processes is "nitpicking"?

Blackwater Babe · Jul 1, 2012

So Asimov, Hawking, Sagan, Blum, Feynmen, Hubble, & all the evolutionist sources I have quoted are the wrong places. Right. But unlike him, I use my critical thinking skills to discern fact from fiction.

Asimov?

Martyrs44 · Jul 1, 2012

jinx25 said:
So the very fact we can see spiral arms Martyr, and based on whats said they *should* be gone after .x billion years? PROVES they arnt billions of years old? My head hurts a bit

Gasp! Just think....in 9 billion yrs they will be able to prove us wrong!

metherion · Jul 1, 2012

It's so amusing to see you quote mine the same thing over and over and over. You come to the part that you think says what you want and you just full stop, and don't bother to read anything else, and dismiss anything else said because it contradicts what you WANT sources to say. The only kind of ignorance that can't be cured is willful ignorance, and you've demonstrated that multiple times. All you've done is quote something about a known problem for a previous model. You willfully ignore anything that shows you HEY, THERE IS A NEW MODEL THAT DOESN"T HAVE THIS PROBLEM on purpose, and call me a liar for pointing out that such a model exists.

Funny story, there are problems with the phlogiston theory. That means science knows nothing about chemistry, right? I say, "Nope, we've discovered oxygen."
What you're doing is equivalent to telling me I'm a liar because I told you about oxygen.

Also, this cracks me up:

Where in the world is this man's mind? Where did I assume that galaxies have a 'solid body' (Like a LP record in which the outer part of the record is connected to the center by plastic)?

You see, there is this wonderful empty thing called SPACE. Stars are not connected to each other by poles, nor is the aether real for them to be pulled in. That's why your 'problem' isn't a problem: new model have realized that treating an entire arm of stars in a spiral galaxy containing millions of stars and HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF CUBIC LIGHT YEARS OF EMPTY SPACE like a uniform piece of pasta circling a drain doesn't represent reality.

Now, parts of the Bible are quotations from God, yes. Parts of the Bible are quotations from Jesus, yes. But parts of the Bible are quotations from Moses, quotations from the Pharisees, quotations from Caesar. Are those the words from God's mouth? Nope, those are the words of men. And is every word in the Bible NOT listed as a direct quote from God still dictated by God? No, there is nothing in the Bible to support that.

Furthermore, John 1:1, 1984 NIV:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word of God, big W, is Jesus Christ. The Bible was not in the beginning, the Bible was not with God in the beginning, and the Bible is NOT God. Jesus is all these things. The Bible is God's word. Little w. You know, unless you want the Bible to actually BE God. But I think there's something in one of the Commandments about that, right near 'thou shalt not bear false witness'.

Carl Sagan didn't link biological evolution to stellar evolution or anything. He pointed out that the elements that the planets, and by extension life on the planets are made from is formed via nuclear fusion in stars. That's all. He didn't mention stellar evolution NOR biological evolution in the statement, merely the death of stars forming all the non-hydrogen elements LIKE calcium and nitrogen. You do recognize that humans are made up of elements, right? And that nuclear fusion happens in stars, right?

Let him/them deal with the 'winding problem' as his companions in evolution stated it.

Companions in evolution? This isn't evolution. This is astrophysics and astronomy. Just 'evolution' alone refers to biological evolution. This is stellar evolution... astrophysics.

Aye yai yai. I thought this would turn into something, you know, positive and productive. It's gone TOTALLY the other way.

Metherion

samaus12345 · Jul 1, 2012

Sagan is in hell now serving his master who he served on earth. Is it possible metherion that the days in genesis are what one who isnt fully indoctrinated might expect them to be? ie DAYS?

Martyrs44 · Jul 2, 2012

Look........at what they said. Then think.

samaus12345 · Jul 2, 2012

<edit>
How does someone post videos martyr? I put a link to another short Dawkins clip in the creation resources but can i change it so the video comes up in the thread? It is only less than 2 mins or so...

metherion · Jul 2, 2012

<Edit>If your link is from youtube, if you just copy/paste the url, it *should* put up the video. If it's not from youtube, not a clue.

Metherion

Martyrs44 · Jul 2, 2012

<edit>
For video clips here is one way to do it:

Start an account with photobucket or some other picture website. Copy the protocol (web address) and put it in your album as provided by the website. Copy the IMG code and paste it on the thread you wish it to appear here on CF. If it's a video clip it's even easier. Just copy the protocol (address) right off the 'Go' bar in the tool bar above and paste it right here:

GIOVANNI MARRADI - Garden of dreams and Poeme - YouTube

samaus12345 · Jul 3, 2012

sweet dude thanks just did the copy paste and worked its dawkins getting asked another question. Just watched a short vid on youtube with John Polkinghorne talking about that Fred Hoyle find/prediction which was interesting

Martyrs44 · Jul 3, 2012

Good.

But just to reiterate my position here on this issue: a couple of posters have suggested that my point about the spiral galaxies that are 9 billion plus light yrs away from us are being seen by us 9 billion yrs after the fact and therefore my argument doesn't apply...because we'd have to wait at least 9 billion yrs to see if they would wind so tightly and dissipate as the 'winding problem' suggests.

However, there are two problems with this: (1) Any galaxy older than 5 to 10 million yrs old should have spun out by now...regardless as to how far out they might be from our view on earth. This is according to astronomers estimated figures that galaxies turn a complete orbit in about 2 to 3 yrs and that after just a few turns they break up. So 5 to 10 million yrs should be the limit. But even if the limit were 20 to 50 million yrs that would have eliminated well over 90% of them.(2) If Halton Arp and those who agree with him is correct about the red shift then the awful truth is that we don't really know just how far out the stars/galaxies are from the earth.

Here is the reason why:

Arp Peculiar Galaxy Club Introduction | The Astronomical League

His last sentence in the 8th paragraph is one of those 'blow me away' statements that forces one to think deeply on the issue:

Quote: "Arp was left with the conclusion that the huge redshift of the quasars is not due to velocity but some unknown effect. If this is true for the quasars and they are part of the peculiar galaxies, then Hubble's Law can no longer be relied on for distance determination, and the universe may not be expanding, invalidating the Big Bang theory."

One excellent evidence that he brought to us was the deep space view of galaxy NGC 4319 and quasar Markarian 205...which is not supposed to be connected to NGC 4319 but much beyond it by billions of light years as are all the quasars...supposed to be. But it is clearly connected as are other examples Arp provides us in his work.

Harp seems to have a very good case but his intellectual honesty has ruffled establishment feathers and he was even barred from usual access to the great Palomar telescope because he wouldn't shut up about the matter. Hmm. How typical.

But furthermore, the challenge to me that we are seeing spiral galaxies '9 billion yrs ago' and therefore my position on the issue is invalid....backfires on those who make the claim. Why? Because of 'red shift desert'...

Quote:"These highly developed galaxies, whose star-forming youth is in fact long gone, just shouldn't be there, but are."
Dr. Karl Glazebrook (Johns Hopkins University).

Some of the faintest spectra in the universe raise a glaring question: Why do Galaxies in the early universe appear old? Until recently, astronomers have been nearly blind when looking back in time to survey an era when most stars in the Universe were expected to have formed. This critical cosmological blind-spot was removed in 2011 by a team using the Frederick C. Gillett Gemini North Telescope located on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, showing that many galaxies in the young Universe are not behaving as they would have expected some 8-11 billion years ago.

The surprise: these galaxies appear to be more fully formed and mature than expected at this early stage in the evolution of the Universe. "Theory tells us that this epoch should be dominated by little galaxies crashing together," said Dr. Roberto Abraham (University of Toronto) who was a Co-Principal Investigator of the team that conducted the observations at Gemini. "We are seeing that a large fraction of the stars in the Universe are already in place when the Universe was quite young, which should not be the case.

Mysteries of "The Redshift Desert" --Why Do Galaxies in the Early Universe Appear Old?

So despite the critics theories about the matter in terms of billions of light yrs...they nonetheless never take their thinking back far enough in what is actually required if the theories were true. This is a big part of the reason why I reject most status quo establishment theories.

samaus12345 · Jul 3, 2012

NGC 4319 and quasar Markarian 205...which is not supposed to be connected to NGC 4319

so "they arnt connected" is what must be said to not invalidate their assumptions/models of the fairytale big bang/13.75 billion years?

also what is the "expansion" of the universe based on? i dont fully get "redshift" yet? some elements block the passage of light and so we see some spectrum of it more than others? wow dude this whole thing comes crashing down just by your comments lool i will get a cosmology textbook soon...thanks good read will read some more of Arps stuff...

Martyrs44 · Jul 3, 2012

jinx25 said:
NGC 4319 and quasar Markarian 205...which is not supposed to be connected to NGC 4319

so "they arnt connected" is what must be said to not invalidate their assumptions/models of the fairytale big bang/13.75 billion years?

also what is the "expansion" of the universe based on? i dont fully get "redshift" yet? some elements block the passage of light and so we see some spectrum of it more than others? wow dude this whole thing comes crashing down just by your comments lool i will get a cosmology textbook soon...thanks good read will read some more of Arps stuff...

Redshift definition: "In physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens when light seen coming from an object that is moving away is proportionally increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. More generally, where an observer detects electromagnetic radiation outside the visible spectrum, "redder" amounts to a technical shorthand for "increase in electromagnetic wavelength" which also implies lower frequency and photon energy in accord with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories of light.

Redshifts are attributable to the Doppler effect, familiar in the changes in the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles. (Wikipedia)

Thanks, but the strongest evidence against cosmic and/or stellar evolution comes from the world of evolutionists themselves who discovered in their research the anomalies that what they had been taught by the classic evolution idea of a slowly evolving universe. But the fact is, it is not evolving, it is degenerating.

samaus12345 · Jul 3, 2012

For martyrs

Mike's Origins Resource: A PhD Creationist's view of Science, Origins, and the Future Hope of the Human Race.

This site is by one dude pretty impressive one of two creation sites i enjoy you got any?

Martyrs44 · Jul 3, 2012

jinx25 said:
For martyrs

Mike's Origins Resource: A PhD Creationist's view of Science, Origins, and the Future Hope of the Human Race.

This site is by one dude pretty impressive one of two creation sites i enjoy you got any?

Creation - Creation Ministries International

Martyrs44 · Jul 4, 2012

double post.

Why stellar evolution theory is false

Newbie

Veteran

Legend

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency