When you start getting a little war hardened, like I have...
Oh, I'm so far beyond war hardened I'm philosophical!
Apparently, it is assumed that Boyle's Law overcomes gravity under all circumstances.
This is what the scientific evidence demonstrates, to believe otherwise is speculation.Ã‚Â This may not be totally unreasonable but speculation sold as fact is deceptive.
What leads you to believe that there is scientific evidence that "Boyle's law overcomes gravity under all circumstances?" Look at it this way. Gravity is what holds earth's atmosphere in place. The Sun is 99% gaseous, and gravity holds all this gas in place so firmly that a fusion furnace has ignited in the Sun's core. These simple observations tell us that gravity is as effective in constraining gas's tendency to disperse (an obvious inference from Boyle's law) as a sealed glass container.
In other words, not only does the scientific evidence and
theory tell us that Boyle's law is subject to gravity, the mere fact that we're not breathing a vacuum says that Boyle's law had darn well better be subject to gravity, else we wouldn't be here. Boyle's law relates pressure to volume, and it doesn't matter whether the source of the pressure is a moving piston, a region of higher pressure (think weather), or gravity.
In your next message you say at one point in reply to a description of the behavior of large nebulae:
Again, this is all speculation based on naturalistic assumptions. You can't demonstrate this. You believe it because something like this must be true according to your worldview. Again, you can believe this if you want but it's not science.
While it may not be information of which you are personally aware, it is not speculation. Just as calculating the course of spacecraft to arrive at Mars is not speculation, calculating the behavior of gas clouds (using formula more sophisticated and complete than Boyle's law, which only took into account the behavior of gases at temperatures and pressures that could be produced in the 17th century) is also not speculation. You accept Boyle's law, and the more modern and sophisticated gas laws are not only completely consistent with Boyle's law for the limited range of temperatures and pressures and other conditions that it covers, but they also cover a wide range of conditions for which Boyle's law is unsuitable.
This has nothing to do with world view. Gas laws do not behave one way for creationists and another way for physicists, chemists and cosmologists.
One misconception I think you might have that may be leading you to conclude that gas clouds can't compress due to their own gravity is that you don't think that a gas cloud can have gravity, but it most certainly can, even very tenuous gas clouds. As both Ibex Pop and I have related to you, the gas cloud will be non-uniform, and areas of slightly greater density will have slightly greater gravity than other parts of the cloud, and they will attract more gas toward them, increasing their density and gravity even more and thereby attracting even more gas, and so forth.
Now I know you don't believe this, so let me direct your attention to the AIG excerpt you provided. Notice that this excerpt agrees that gas clouds collapse. They go on to cite effects that prevent this from happening to the point where stars can form, but AIG understands that gas clouds collapse due to the effects of gravity. Boyle's law does not provide gas clouds a "get out of gravity free" card.
Your AIG excerpt cites reasons that new stars can't form having nothing to do with Boyle's law. One is increasing pressure from within generated by increasing temperature (remember the increasing temperature I mentioned some messages ago?), another is angular momentum, another is magnetic fields. AIG characterizes these as "serious scientifc problems," and maybe we can get into a more detailed discussion of them, but first we have to get past this Boyle's law thing. AIG disagrees with you about Boyle's law preventing the gravitational compression of gas clouds.