How do creationists explain stars?

I find Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' to be even better This message has been edited by cavediver, 03-04-2006 12:33 PM

A couple of quick points... You then use a cloud of diameter 300 ly...Using this diameter (10^18m) you have a volume of 10^54m3 and hence a molecule count of 10^66 at your density. I would thus revisit your mass of 10^121kg which is somewhat(!) larger than the mass of the observable universe...

No, it cannot. In your example, "mass" is your other form of energy. Just about all the mass you think you measure is actually just binding energy - from the strong force.

Mass is essentially made up of two components - rest mass and "conventional" energy.For example, a hydorgen atom is made up of the rest mass of the four fundemental particles of which it is made: 1 eletcron, 2 up quarks, and a down quark. This totals about 16 MeV. The mass of the hydrogen atom is close to 1GeV!!! Just about all the unaccounted 984 MeV is from binding energy between the quarks, and a tiny tiny fraction from the electromagnetic binding energy between the electron and the proton.So mass, to all intents and puposes IS energy. The only "matter" bit of the mass accounts for less than 2% of actual mass.And even the rest mass is not sacred as "pair annihilation" (matter/anti-matter annihilation) will reduce matter (electrons, quarks, etc) to photons, and so even the rest mass has gone now!

Apparent metaphysics to the layman, perhaps, but not in reality. We call it mathematical/theoretical physics.----
Cavediver (One-time String Theorist)

Yes, and this argument is fundementally flawed as applied to the universe - fallacy of composition I think the guys round here call it. I just call it wrong Not true. Diffciult to explain in the time I have now (should be working!) but most certainly untrue. Of course it can't. Last-Thursdayism can be applied at any point in our history. It is just a little ugly. The workings of this universe are incredibly beautiful. The idea of God just poofing them into existence mid-flow is bizarre and immensely unaesthetic relative to the workings themselves. Perhaps if God had a hang-over from hell after partying on day 0, then I could understand such a bodged creation effort on day 1... but it doesn't fit comfortably with me. If God made us pre-formed, why are we made of this unimaginably complex stuff? Why are we not just animated clay as Genesis 2 suggests? One or other fits perfectly - pre-formed clay, or evolved complex matter - but the creationist half-way house of pre-formed complex stuff is simply weird and unpalatable, and does not sound like my God at all.---Cavediver (Christian and Scientist but not Christian Scientist )

Hmmm, I certainly didn't forget. Just not convinced The fermionic masses and Higgs don't sit well together. The Higgs mechanism is a fine part of the Standard Model for the massive gauge particles (Ws and Z) but the whole massive fermion sector is more a signal of the breakdown of the Standard Model, and will be better explained by a more fundemental level: possibly String/M-theory.

Hi Phat, I think Percy's missing a comma "Even before Darwin, geologists..."

He's alright... Hasn't done much since leaving University of Newcastle, England (late 80's) but don't tell him I said so Sort of interesting. Probably not correct, as many pointed out (Steve Carlip in PHys Rev D 67 023507 for example)What Davies and his students are saying is that microscopic changes in alpha (the fine structure constant) that may have been observed in the early universe (~12 bilion years ago) can be translated into microscopic changes in c (the speed of light) through an argument based upon black hole thermodynamics. However, as Carlip points out, this argument is not particularly sound.However, it is possible that the speed of light has changed slightly (in wahtever way this can be interpreted)... That's right: the universe as we measure it at 12 billion years old is actually some tiny fraction of a percent different to 12 billion years old. Amazing. If I'd realised that such a small change was all it required to align cosmology and YEC ideas I would have published my book years ago Nice try... no bananaI see you picked up on the newspaper editor's comment about an infinite c at the big bang Notice this was not Paul's comment. Even if this were true, it does not change the fact that 12 billion years ago is still just about 12 billion years ago. Sorry.

Sorry for being dense, but I'm not with you. Can you explain what you mean?

Sadly this quote is depends upon a certain feature that Hawking believed black holes possessed. He has since conceded that he was probably mistaken. The universe still appears deterministic.

Well, as an astrophysicist I would have to say you are wrong Care to show me your calculations?

Hi rgb, I'm glad because I've personally been quite impressed with Rob's attitude both here and across the board, and I think you've been giving him quite a rough time He demonstrates a humility in his faith which is all too rare here at EvC, but i do think his humility is often misunderstood...Just a quick comment on Rob's conversation with Sylvain Porier: to deny a miracle based upon physical laws is just silly. If miracles exist, they are often by definition outside the natural scheme of reality. If they are instigated by God, then there is no problem. Perhaps he simply swaps one universe lacking in loaves and fish for one with slightly more. It would perhaps explain why they are not more commonplace! Trying to refute miracles based upon science is a rather futile exercise, and any scientist whether theist/agnostic/atheist should have the sense to realise this.Anyway, all off-topic so I'll stop nowEdited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Working backwards You need to spend more time in academia. I have heard this and far worse!!! Again, I've heard it many times. Not that it's difficult to point out how daft such a point is, and usually the scientist does tend to shuffle away mumbling. That's why I had to smile when I heard Rob's story. The humility comes when one realises "hey, I'm out of my depth here with people who actually know what they are talking about". Oh, if just about everyone could think this when they come to give me THEIR theories on black holes YECs are a minor irritant compared to them...And also, don't forget that these ideas are not usually generated in isolation. Most of this comes from ICR and AIG. If you are a Christian, who do you trust implicitly? Other Christians. They will never lie, never distort the truth. And the Christians over at ICR and AIG tell us all this wonderful stuff about how science completely backs up YECism, how archaeology completely backs up the OT, etc, etc.It is no surprise that guys like Rob turn up with these ideas and espouse them. To then realise that one is out of one's depth and back away, as Rob has done, is where the humility lies. Good for him.I notice Ramoss' point above, and think it is extremely unfair. Such a changing of one's worlview is not going to occur after a few days' talking with anonymous strangers at some internet site. If it occurs, it will be down the line. I think it is a bit of both. Knowing how much if each is beyond my current ESP capability, but I'm happy to give the benefit of doubt. This is only too true Too late for that! And trapped is not a state, it's just a question... "for how long?"And how off-topic is this? How do I suspend myself? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

You expect too much too soon...And is there any need to have a correct scientific worldview? 99.9% of homo sapiens manage without one.I cannot possibly argue with "I believe there was a Genesis flood." It is only when it is backed up with lies that it is a problem for me - "of course the flood is scientifically possible, and there's so much evidence for it"ABE: Similarly "I believe God created the stars 6000 years ago" is fine. "Astrophysics is wrong, stars cannot form naturally, and obviously God made them 6000 yeas ago" is not...Edited by cavediver, : To bring back on-topic