Jump to content


The Origin Of Matter


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
47 replies to this topic

#41 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 November 2008 - 09:26 PM

Again, I urge you to actually seek information about astromomy, instead of just arguing from ignorance.

There is absolutely nothing in the BB theory that precludes new stars being formed continuously.
You are evidently missing the scale of things here. A solar system is a microscopic speck in the universe. The effect of expansion is not perceptible on a solar system scale. In fact, it is barely perceptible on the scale of a galaxy.
Where on Earth did you get the idea that black holes are stationary? Black holes are not particularly predicted by the BB theory, but they are indeed predicted by the laws of physics.
Meteors are also part of the solar system. Within that scale, the expansion of space is, as already mentioned, infinitessimal.

The order is guided by the laws of physics.

Hans

View Post


No, I am not missing anything about the solar systems being a large, but extremely small part of this universe. The thing strict atheist don't realize is that the expansion part isn't all that important, because in all reality how did solar systems that contain a rather good deal of gravity come into play. Also about the production of new stars, it is evident that there is NO banging or expansion of the universe from that vantage point going on there.

So, these new stars are not expanding with the rest of the universe, hmm this is strange because everything in the universe should be moving. Anyways, even if the entire universe is expanding, it poses no problem for a creationist model simply because that may just be the way God intended it to be. Because God created all things with age during the creation. It only makes sense that God would have done this simply because thats how we as humans need it to be just to view the light being produced by stars, and galaxys from our position here on earth.

Anyways, I have taken your advice about looking into astronomy. Very interesting stuff really.

#42 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 21 November 2008 - 12:24 AM

No, I am not missing anything about the solar systems being a large, but extremely small part of this universe.  The thing strict atheist don't realize is that the expansion part isn't all that important, because in all reality how did solar systems that contain a rather good deal of gravity come into play. Also about the production of new stars, it is evident that there is NO banging or expansion of the universe from that vantage point going on there.

View Post


Solar systems don't contain gravity. It's a fundamental force of attraction that exists between all matter.

Also about the production of new stars, it is evident that there is NO banging or expansion of the universe from that vantage point going on there.

View Post


You're right there. New stars are formed by the collapse of gas clouds.

So, these new stars are not expanding with the rest of the universe, hmm this is strange because everything in the universe should be moving. 

View Post


Space is expanding on a universal scale. Everything in the universe is moving relative to everything else.

Anyways, even if the entire universe is expanding, it poses no problem for a creationist model simply because that may just be the way God intended it to be. 

View Post


That is one major flaw of the creationist model. Everything could be just how God wanted it to be. But that doesn't help matters. Just looking at the way the universe behaves, we can come up with new technologies to help make our lives better.

And that can still be just the way God wants it.

#43 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 21 November 2008 - 10:09 AM

Solar systems don't contain gravity.  It's a fundamental force of attraction that exists between all matter.
You're right there.  New stars are formed by the collapse of gas clouds.
Space is expanding on a universal scale.  Everything in the universe is moving relative to everything else.
That is one major flaw of the creationist model.  Everything could be just how God wanted it to be.  But that doesn't help matters.  Just looking at the way the universe behaves, we can come up with new technologies to help make our lives better.

And that can still be just the way God wants it.

View Post


It poses no problem, the extremely major problem for atheist, is that the creation of the universe doesn't line up with atheistical beliefs. Solar systems are just attracted to each other because of the fundamental force that exist between matter, really, you are stating that solar systems attraction exist simply because thats the way it's supposed to be.

Gravity itself is hard to explain, the origin of matter is hard to explain, and the great expansion which is only based on sketchy redshifting ideas really doesn't help anything either.

The first time I saw the CERN collider, and the outrageous claims that all these atheistical scientist were making about how crashing particles together would prove the big bang, I thought it was rediculous. It will quite possibly go down in history as the single most largest waste of money ever. Crashing particles together or protons would most definetly not prove anything.

The colliding Galaxies we see also provide more problems for the expanding universe theory, simply because galaxies should not be moving toward each other, and if they all came from a central location or from the same point of expansion they would not be doing this. This almost single handedly proves the Big Bang theory wrong. Unless these galaxies were created after the Big Bang.

Also after doing some research on the collapse of gas clouds, we see that stars cannot be produced this way, simply because gas expands, and would not have the ability to create a planet or a star. Because gas clouds do NOT compress, and has yet to be scientifically proven.

#44 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 21 November 2008 - 03:44 PM

It poses no problem, the extremely major problem for atheist, is that the creation of the universe doesn't line up with atheistical beliefs. 

View Post


It's not a problem, you can conduct scientific experiments and get the same results no matter what your beliefs are.

Solar systems are just attracted to each other because of the fundamental force that exist between matter, really, you are stating that solar systems attraction exist simply because thats the way it's supposed to be.

View Post


No, I'm stating that gravity exists as an attractive fundamental force in the universe. We can measure that force with great accuracy using experiments derived from theories about that force.

Gravity itself is hard to explain, the origin of matter is hard to explain, and the great expansion which is only based on sketchy redshifting ideas really doesn't help anything either.

View Post


It is hard to explain what we know about gravity fully. Most of it involves a lot of physics and maths. But there are people that know a lot more about it than me and spend a lot of time in telescopes checking this kind of thing. Mostly because if they can find an observation that the theory doesn't explain, or even better, prompts a new better theory they could win a Nobel prize.

The first time I saw the CERN collider, and the outrageous claims that all these atheistical scientist were making about how crashing particles together would prove the big bang, I thought it was rediculous.  It will quite possibly go down in history as the single most largest waste of money ever.  Crashing particles together or protons would most definetly not prove anything.

View Post


No super collider on its own will ever prove the big bang. The big bang theory might not even pan out. But any theory that replaces it is going to have to include a red shift, an expansion of space, a weak gravitational force, a finite speed of light and a homogeneous hot dense universe.

When they do experiments where they crash particles together they can smash into each other to make even more energetic particles like scientists would expect to find in the early universe. Studying these particles helps us understand more about how the world around us works.

The colliding Galaxies we see also provide more problems for the expanding universe theory, simply because galaxies should not be moving toward each other, and if they all came from a central location or from the same point of expansion they would not be doing this.  This almost single handedly proves the Big Bang theory wrong. Unless these galaxies were created after the Big Bang.

View Post


Space is expanding on a universal scale. Everything is moving. Some things are moving towards each other on a local scale.

Some galaxies moving towards each other in local regions of space doesn't overturn the observation that most everything else is getting more distant.

Also after doing some research on the collapse of gas clouds, we see that stars cannot be produced this way, simply because gas expands, and would not have the ability to create a planet or a star. Because gas clouds do NOT compress, and has yet to be scientifically proven.

View Post


Since a lot of telescope time is taken up by astronomers observing gas clouds collapsing to form young stars I would argue that they do. A suitably massive gas cloud will collapse under the force of gravity and as the gas falls in, compresses and gets denser it gets hotter because of Boyle and his laws. Eventually it becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to start.

And a star is born! ;)

#45 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 November 2008 - 09:14 PM

It's not a problem, you can conduct scientific experiments and get the same results no matter what your beliefs are.
No, I'm stating that gravity exists as an attractive fundamental force in the universe.  We can measure that force with great accuracy using experiments derived from theories about that force.
It is hard to explain what we know about gravity fully.  Most of it involves a lot of physics and maths.  But there are people that know a lot more about it than me and spend a lot of time in telescopes checking this kind of thing.  Mostly because if they can find an observation that the theory doesn't explain, or even better, prompts a new better theory they could win a Nobel prize.
No super collider on its own will ever prove the big bang.  The big bang theory might not even pan out.  But any theory that replaces it is going to have to include a red shift, an expansion of space, a weak gravitational force, a finite speed of light and a homogeneous hot dense universe.

When they do experiments where they crash particles together they can smash into each other to make even more energetic particles like scientists would expect to find in the early universe.  Studying these particles helps us understand more about how the world around us works.
Space is expanding on a universal scale.  Everything is moving.  Some things are moving towards each other on a local scale.

Some galaxies moving towards each other in local regions of space doesn't overturn the observation that most everything else is getting more distant. 
Since a lot of telescope time is taken up by astronomers observing gas clouds collapsing to form young stars I would argue that they do.  A suitably massive gas cloud will collapse under the force of gravity and as the gas falls in, compresses and gets denser it gets hotter because of Boyle and his laws.  Eventually it becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to start.

And a star is born! :rolleyes:

View Post


You know, I truly don't think the vast amounts of lightyears having to be travelled long distances through space disproves or proves creationism. Simply because God created everything with age during the Creation.

Just think, If Adam were brought back from the past, being only 2 weeks old and then carried over to a room filled with scientist. The scientist would have a fit over Adam claiming to be 2 weeks old. Simply because Adam appears to be 25 years old, yet there is absolutely no evidence that he is 2 weeks old. Adams claim of being 2 weeks old is not testable, and he will not convince anyone of his true age without God appearing and telling everyone so.

This idea I have is simple, and I don't expect my position to be convincing. But this is basically what one would have to interpret the Creation account by taking it Literally.

#46 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 24 November 2008 - 10:47 PM

You know, I truly don't think the vast amounts of lightyears having to be travelled long distances through space disproves or proves creationism.  Simply because God created everything with age during the Creation.

Just think, If Adam were brought back from the past, being only 2 weeks old and then carried over to a room filled with scientist.  The scientist would have a fit over Adam claiming to be 2 weeks old. Simply because Adam appears to be 25 years old, yet there is absolutely no evidence that he is 2 weeks old.  Adams claim of being 2 weeks old is not testable, and he will not convince anyone of his true age without God appearing and telling everyone so. 

This idea I have is simple, and I don't expect my position to be convincing.  But this is basically what one would have to interpret the Creation account by taking it Literally.

View Post


If you could go back into the past and pick up Adam, you could side step the whole problem nicely by just going straight to God himself as he's walking through the Garden of Eden.

You could even go and have a chat to Eve and stop her from eating the apple that goes on to cause so much suffering in the world afterwards. You might even be able to persuade God not to plant the Tree of Knowledge in the first place!

#47 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 01 December 2008 - 03:27 AM

Mystery of missing hydrogen Something vital is missing in the far distant reaches of the Universe: hydrogen - the raw material for stars, planets and possible life.

The discovery of its apparent absence from distant galaxies by a team of Australian astronomers is puzzling because hydrogen gas is the most common constituent of normal matter in the Universe.

If anything, hydrogen was expected to be more abundant so early in the life of the Universe because it had not yet been consumed by the formation of all the stars and galaxies we know today.

Dr Steve Curran and colleagues at the University of New South Wales made their observations with the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope in India, which comprises thirty 45-metre-diameter dishes and is one of the world's most sensitive radio telescopes. The results are to be published in a forthcoming issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

By looking at galaxies in which the light has taken over 11.5 billion years to reach us, they found an apparent lack of hydrogen when the Universe was only two billion years old - long before our own Sun and all other stars in the present Universe had formed.

Stars form when extremely cold clouds of hydrogen collapse under their own gravity until they become dense enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Over billions of years, this leads the formation of the heavier elements that make up planets, people and other matter. Each galaxy should contain gas masses equivalent to several billion stars, as in the Milky Way.

"Since hydrogen gas is consumed by star formation, we may expect more hydrogen gas in the distant, and therefore earlier, Universe as all of the stars we see today have yet to form," Dr Curran says.


#48 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:27 AM

Mystery of missing hydrogen Something vital is missing in the far distant reaches of the Universe: hydrogen - the raw material for stars, planets and possible life.

The discovery of its apparent absence from distant galaxies by a team of Australian astronomers is puzzling because hydrogen gas is the most common constituent of normal matter in the Universe.

If anything, hydrogen was expected to be more abundant so early in the life of the Universe because it had not yet been consumed by the formation of all the stars and galaxies we know today.

Dr Steve Curran and colleagues at the University of New South Wales made their observations with the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope in India, which comprises thirty 45-metre-diameter dishes and is one of the world's most sensitive radio telescopes. The results are to be published in a forthcoming issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

By looking at galaxies in which the light has taken over 11.5 billion years to reach us, they found an apparent lack of hydrogen when the Universe was only two billion years old - long before our own Sun and all other stars in the present Universe had formed.

Stars form when extremely cold clouds of hydrogen collapse under their own gravity until they become dense enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Over billions of years, this leads the formation of the heavier elements that make up planets, people and other matter. Each galaxy should contain gas masses equivalent to several billion stars, as in the Milky Way.

"Since hydrogen gas is consumed by star formation, we may expect more hydrogen gas in the distant, and therefore earlier, Universe as all of the stars we see today have yet to form," Dr Curran says.

View Post


Nice quote. What's your point?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users