Jump to content


Photo

Yet Another Star Formation Thread


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:58 PM

Are you sure you're asking the right question here? I have told you that the time period for star formation takes many multiple lifetimes and won't be observed by a simgle person. We have to look at different stars at different stages. This is perfectly legitimate physics.


And I thanked you for admitting that you have no evidence.So why belabor a point that you obviously cannot defend to begin with?
  • goldliger likes this

#22 Mat Hunt

Mat Hunt

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:00 PM

And I thanked you for admitting that you have no evidence.So why belabor a point that you obviously cannot defend to begin with?

I actually didn't say that there was no evidence, can you show me where I did?

#23 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:06 PM

I actually didn't say that there was no evidence, can you show me where I did?


You actually did but not in those exact words. But if I am wrong then we are very eager to see your evidence that stellar gas has/can coalesce into stars. You need to do more than give theory. Show us.

#24 Mat Hunt

Mat Hunt

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:10 PM

You want to see different stages of star formation?

#25 Mat Hunt

Mat Hunt

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:14 PM

You can view the stages of star formation here, http://www.classzone...s2807page01.cfm

#26 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:21 PM

You can view the stages of star formation here, http://www.classzone...s2807page01.cfm


Ha, ha, ha, ha,ha.

Nice artwork. But where is the observed phenomena?

Do you actually think we are that stupid?

P.S. did you or did you not take a look at my OP on the great problem for stellar evolution as I suggested above?
  • gilbo12345 and goldliger like this

#27 Mat Hunt

Mat Hunt

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:35 PM

I did, I am not sure what it is supposed to prove however?

Some pictures: http://images.search...&start=0&pos=13

#28 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 October 2012 - 02:03 PM

I did, I am not sure what it is supposed to prove however?

Some pictures: http://images.search...&start=0&pos=13


It is a common problem among those who have rejected their Creator. The intricacies of His handiwork is compltely missed by those with minds darkened by sin.

The point: In everything from the closest spiral galaxy (Andromeda, 2.5 million light yrs.) to BX442 which is about 10 billion light yrs from us...we see spiral galaxies.
Posted Image

But according to current stellar evolution theory, that should not be. It's called the 'winding problem'. Since spiral galaxies take only 2 to 3 turns before beginning to dissipate and lose their spiral defintion then anything beyond the 10 to 20 million light year range should NOT reveal spirals. Yet they are seen throughout the visible universe in every direction. You should be saying to yourself, "Houston, we've got a problem!"

Not only so but scientists are confounded as to how spiral galaxies even formed in the first place: http://astronomy.swi...mos/W/Winding P

The winding problem is discussed here...among many other sites;
http://en.wikipedia....ity_wave_theory


BX442 and other spirals nearest it are supposed to be the 'earliest' parts of the universe...and therefore the spiral galaxies should not exist any longer. But mature looking spiral galaxies are seen everywhere, or at least, almost everywhere but certainly in every direction.

Yeah, you and your unbelieving companions have a mighty big problem there, fella.
  • goldliger likes this

#29 Mat Hunt

Mat Hunt

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 October 2012 - 02:26 PM

"The intricacies of His handiwork is compltely missed by those with minds darkened by sin."
Sorry? Has this ANYTHING to do with the physics of star formation?

More ideas on spiral arms of galaxies: http://www.ras.org.u...ral-galaxy-arms

There will always be things that science will need to explain but that is no reason why we should throw it out.

#30 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 October 2012 - 03:04 PM

"The intricacies of His handiwork is compltely missed by those with minds darkened by sin."
Sorry? Has this ANYTHING to do with the physics of star formation?


It has everything with your lack of perception as to the problem. Don't forget that this is a Christian website and you are dealing with Christian creationists. We view the world through the eyes of scripture. "The heavens declare the glory of God" whether skeptics like you believe it or not.

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

More ideas on spiral arms of galaxies: http://www.ras.org.u...ral-galaxy-arms

There will always be things that science will need to explain but that is no reason why we should throw it out.


I just gave you a big one but you are acting like it's not a problem at all...no matter what the experts among your companions in stellar evolution have admitted. Well, I can't stop you from living in denial.

Your link didn't work. I tried three times.
  • goldliger likes this

#31 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 30 October 2012 - 07:28 PM

You can view the stages of star formation here, http://www.classzone...s2807page01.cfm


Oh no, he did NOT just link to drawings as his "evidence".


Oh wait...


He did.

#32 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:51 PM

"The intricacies of His handiwork is compltely missed by those with minds darkened by sin."
Sorry? Has this ANYTHING to do with the physics of star formation?

More ideas on spiral arms of galaxies: http://www.ras.org.u...ral-galaxy-arms

There will always be things that science will need to explain but that is no reason why we should throw it out.

Hey Matthew, it's Jason, the admin of Atheism on the Slide. I hope you are doing well. I was informed that you have already been banned once, it is against the rules to make another account in order to bypass a ban so I had to ban you again. If you want your account to be reinstated you can email the admin of this site. Thanks.

#33 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:04 AM

Hey Matthew, it's Jason, the admin of Atheism on the Slide. I hope you are doing well. I was informed that you have already been banned once, it is against the rules to make another account in order to bypass a ban so I had to ban you again. If you want your account to be reinstated you can email the admin of this site. Thanks.


I thought this might happen, but all things considered, maybe we should thank him for helping our cause for he certainly didn't give any evidence that star evolution occurs by observed coalescence rather than by what they naturally do: dissipate.
  • goldliger likes this

#34 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:39 PM

Hi can you say what a "militant atheist" is? I am coming at the viewpoint from a scientific point of view. Cheers.

I will add that the name Matthew Hunt" is an extremely common one in the UK, just go on facebook and search for the name.


I am skeptical that one can be a dedicated atheist and still come from a scientific viewpoint

I am saying that under certain conditions that the force of gravity can be greater that the pressure forcing.


Do you know what these "certain conditions" are? If not then how can such be empirically verified by experiment? If it cannot be empirically verified then how does such hypothesising and guesswork follow the scientific method?.... If it doesn't follow the scientific method, then how can it be claimed to be science? Furthermore if one isn't following the scientific method how can one claim to be a scientist?

#35 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 04 July 2013 - 02:51 PM

An international group of astronomers that includes UC Santa Barbara astrophysicist Crystal Martin and former UCSB postdoctoral researcher Nicolas Bouché has spotted a distant galaxy hungrily snacking on nearby gas. The gas is seen to fall inward toward the galaxy, creating a flow that both fuels star formation and drives the galaxy's rotation. This is the best direct observational evidence so far supporting the theory that galaxies pull in and devour nearby material in order to grow and form stars. The results will appear in the July 5 issue of the journal Science.

http://phys.org/news...earchlight.html


I think there is a serious problem with their "theory"....



#36 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 July 2013 - 06:42 PM

Star formation is the height of pseudoscience in the same category as the other pseudosciences (tea lea reading, abiogenesis, astrology,evolutionism).



#37 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 18 July 2013 - 07:51 AM

Scientists publishing in the journal Nature reported that:

 

"Nearly a century after the true nature of galaxies as distant 'island universes' was established, their origin and evolution remain great unsolved problems of modern astrophysics."[1]

 

Scientists publishing in the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific reported that:

 

"And, as we have remarked ad nauseum, the formation of galaxies and larger scale structure remains TMIUPIMA (This is actually an acronym for 'the most important unsolved problem in modern astrophysics,' not the Telugu word for ingrown toenail)."[2]

 

American physicist James Trefil wrote:

 

"The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."[3]

 

However, there are good reasons to believe that God, the one who created the universe itself[4], created the galaxies in our universe. One reason is their distribution.

The galaxies in our universe are not evenly distributed throughout it.[5,6] Like an onion, the galaxies are arranged in spherical layers around a center point.[7,8] They are arranged in alternating layers of high distribution and low distribution.[9] Basically, an alternating pattern of many galaxies, followed by barely any galaxies, and then many galaxies again, and so on.[10]

 

In The Astrophysical Journal, astronomers Tifft and Cocke wrote:

 

"There is now very firm evidence that redshifts of galaxies are quantized ... "[5]

 

This is a picture of a two-dimensional slice of this giant spherical onion-like structure (every point is a galaxy) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey:

http://www.sdss.org/...galaxy_zoom.jpg

 

Physicist and cosmologist John Hartnett writes:

 

"In these maps, the galaxy density seems to oscillate (decrease and increase periodically) with distance, hence the circular structures.

This spatial galaxy density variation therefore results from the fact that galaxies are preferentially found at certain discrete distances."[11]

 

The Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy published a study by astronomers Napier and Guthrie that said:

 

"The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artifacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques."[7]

 

What's interesting is that we're right near the center of this galaxy structure. John Hartnett writes:

 

"The small dots, each representing a galaxy, appear to form into enormous concentric structures centred on the middle (or the tip of the 'pizza slice'), where our galaxy is located. ... This means we are located at the centre of concentric great spherical shells, on which the galaxies are located, that seem to be equally spaced with a separation of about one hundred million light-years."[11]

 

Physicist and cosmologist Russell Humphreys points out:

 

" ... the probability of our galaxy being so close to the centre of the cosmos by accident is less than one out of a trillion."[12]

 

Hartnett points out:

 

"This is not likely to be a coincidence - but rather, the result of deliberate design."[11]

 

 

References:

 

[1] Michael J. West, Patrick Côté, Ronald O. Marzke & Andrés Jordán, "Reconstructing galaxy histories from globular clusters," Nature 427:31–35, (January 1, 2004); http://www.nature.co...ature02235.html

 

[2] Trimble, Virginia, and Aschwanden, Markus J., "Astrophysics in 2000," Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 113(787):1025–1114, (September, 2001); http://www.jstor.org.../10.1086/322844

 

[3] James Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988), p. 3, 55.

 

[4] Evidence that God created the universe: https://www.facebook...476598352430246

 

[5] W.G. Tifft and W.J. Cocke, "Global redshift quantization," The Astrophysical Journal 287:492–502, (December 15, 1984); http://adsabs.harvar...ApJ...287..492T

 

[6] John G. Hartnett, Koichi Hirano, "Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys," Astrophysics and Space Science 318(1, 2):13–24, (2008); http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4885

 

[7] W. Napier and B. Guthrie, "Quantized redshifts: a status report," Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 18:455–463, (1997); http://www.ias.ac.in.../18/455-463.pdf

 

[8] John G. Hartnett, "Fourier Analysis of the Large Scale Spatial Distribution of Galaxies in the Universe," 2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference, CCC-2. ASP Conference Series, Vol. 413, Proceedings of the conference held 7-11 September 2008, at Port Angeles, Washington, USA. Edited by Frank Potter. San Francisco, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2009., p.77; http://aspbooks.org/...r/413-0077.html

 

[9] Koichi Hirano, Kiyoshi Kawabata, Zen Komiya, "Spatial Periodicity of Galaxy Number Counts, CMB Anisotropy, and SNIa Hubble Diagram Based on the Universe Accompanied by a Non-Minimally Coupled Scalar Field," Astrophysics and Space Science 315:53, (2008); http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4240

 

[10] J. G. Hartnett, "Where are we in the universe?" Journal of Creation 24(2):105–107, (August, 2010); http://creation.com/...ion-in-universe

 

[11] J. G. Hartnett, Starlight, Time and the New Physics (2nd ed., 2010), p. 79–81; http://usstore.creat...ted-p-1015.html

 

[12] Russell Humphreys, "Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, 'quantized' redshifts show," Journal of Creation 16(2):95–104, (August, 2002); http://creation.com/...-redshifts-show






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users