Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 7:53 AM
386 online now:
14174dm, Chiroptera, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Pressie (5 members, 381 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,319 Year: 9,925/21,208 Month: 3,012/2,674 Week: 436/961 Day: 52/114 Hour: 3/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   The not so distant star light problem
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9438
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 106 of 111 (714661)
12-25-2013 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by shalamabobbi
12-25-2013 2:03 PM


Re: I will try
Creation of a middle aged sun is one thing, but creation of a sun that appears to be the product of the debris of former stars is something else.

I've given a YECish reason for the presence of heavy elements. Why doesn't that reason address this issue?

Why the existence of these different kinds of stars? Population I, like the sun, with the most metallicity, earlier generation population II with less metallicity, and finally population III stars with no metallicity?

A YEC has no need to deal with that stuff. It turns out that no one has every found a population III star. Every star ever found has 'metals'. Yes it is true that the BBT requires that there were such stars, and that there are explanations for why we don't see them today. But given that you cannot actual show anyone a population III star, a YEC does not need to deal with the fact that everyone else thinks such things did exist in the early universe.

Yes, and I am corresponding with one of them now, Kent Hovind.

That's fascinating, but Kent Hovind is not my idea of a scientifically minded YEC. Does Kent Hovind actually believe that God created the solar system out of remnants from past super nova?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by shalamabobbi, posted 12-25-2013 2:03 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15766
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 107 of 111 (716318)
01-14-2014 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by marc9000
11-14-2013 7:12 PM


There was limitations in Copernicus work, and the work of those before him, many who yes, got their work turned on its head. (those who thought the sun revolved around the earth, etc.) But if nothing's been falsified since the very primitive days of Copernicus and Galileo, 500+years, then it's safe to say that astronomy is too vague to be falsifiable.

Oh, it's worse than that. In thousands of years, no-one's falsified the claim that the Sun exists. Therefore this claim is "too vague to be falsifiable", and so is unscientific.

Either that or you have no idea what you're talking about. Yeah, that could be it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by marc9000, posted 11-14-2013 7:12 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15766
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 108 of 111 (716319)
01-14-2014 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
11-17-2013 4:12 PM


Re: I need to break this into two posts. 1
Let me go through it in another way then, which sums up my entire position. It does not matter what we understand about physics or any other form of science, it is all completely disconnectable from the supernatural way God created all of reality. If science finds anything that it claims has the ability to falsify a supernatural act, then science is thinking higher of itself than it ought to think, and is no longer a disinterested pursuit of knowledge.

But manifestly science can falsify certain claims about supernatural acts. If, for example, someone tells us that God has destroyed Las Vegas with fire as punishment for its wicked ways, then that would be a supernatural act, and yet we can determine that it did not take place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2013 4:12 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 230 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 109 of 111 (716473)
01-17-2014 12:43 PM


Preserve the gaps, so God has somewhere to live!
While SDSS J102915+172927 is not the giant, shorter lived, population III stars expected by the model it is acknowledged to be ancient due to its lack of metals and in that sense it does confirm the ideas involved with the evolution of the universe which is what I meant by my previous post. That I understood it wasn't the population III stars of the model is why I provided the link to the James Webb Space Telescope that may provide the first views of these stars.

quote:
SDSS J102915+172927 might fall into the transition region between the first generation of stars (sometimes referred to as Population III) and the second generation, or Population II; halo, EMP and CEMP stars belong to the latter group.

http://nhn.nhn.ou.edu/~cowan/488288a.pdf

Anyhow the purpose of this post is to expose the spin put on this star by creationists. Contrast it with how science plods forward by resolving such puzzles with further research. Here is the official party line:

quote:
Lead author Elisabetta Caffau said in a European Southern Observatory press release, "A widely accepted theory predicts that stars like this, with low mass and extremely low quantities of metals, shouldn't exist because the clouds of material from which they formed could never have condensed."1

But physics clearly shows that stars cannot form from clouds without miraculously fortuitous events.2 In order for a cloud of hot gas to condense into a star, heat must somehow escape. The denser the cloud particles become, the hotter they get, thus repelling one another so strongly that they would never condense into a star on their own.
...
Remarkably, it also had no detectable lithium, which is thought to have been the third most abundant element present in the cloud from which this star supposedly formed. To rescue naturalistic formation theories of this star's birth, the study authors had to speculate that the star was at one time super-heated enough to burn off all the lithium, but the physical "reasons for this meltdown are not understood."3
...
When all options inside the realm of physics fail to explain a phenomenon, then options outside of physics should be considered. And in this case, the Word from the One who exists outside of physical space specifically states "[God] made the stars."4 It stands to reason, then, that these stars "declare the glory of God" by confounding man's attempts to replace God with physics.5



http://www.icr.org/article/6378/

If God exists and created everything is not physics a description of the operation of that creation? Are creationists really this stupid?

"When all options inside the realm of physics fail to explain a phenomenon, then options outside of physics should be considered."

Apply this technique to discovery at any point along the history of physics and it would have been stopped cold in its progress. A more blatantly anti-science stance on the part of creationists could not have been made. Maybe they should be required by law to live apart from the rest of society without any of the benefits of scientific discovery over the past 200 years. They stand side by side with the priests that opposed Galileo calling his telescope "demon possessed."


Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by AZPaul3, posted 01-17-2014 11:13 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 110 of 111 (716510)
01-17-2014 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by shalamabobbi
01-17-2014 12:43 PM


Re: Preserve the gaps, so God has somewhere to live!
quote:
But physics clearly shows that stars cannot form from clouds without miraculously fortuitous events.2 In order for a cloud of hot gas to condense into a star, heat must somehow escape. The denser the cloud particles become, the hotter they get, thus repelling one another so strongly that they would never condense into a star on their own.

Creation science physics may show this but in Real Physics there is a saying:

"Gravity works in strange and mysterious ways."

Except it isn't so strange and we solved the mystery about 100 years ago. The denser the particles become, the hotter they get, and even this heat cannot overcome the relentless pull of gravity. Once the process starts it does not stop. Only when actual fusion begins can the energy produced balance the pull of gravity. Even then that energy can never overcome gravity but just hold it at bay for, maybe, a few billion years. Then ... BANG! ... gravity wins every time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-17-2014 12:43 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 111 of 111 (721251)
03-05-2014 4:03 PM


Boring Long Distances
Hey. I see in the title the words "starlight" and "distance."

While this has close to nothing to do with starlight it does at least start there.

The rest is distance. And more distance And more distance. And still more distance. And then even more distance.

Our Solar System - to scale.

Found through Pharyngula.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Make fonts get smaller.


  
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017