How do creationists explain stars?

. Which ones? how?

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

Only in the sense that you have not observed growth of trees (as mentioned in Message 173 above. Clearly you do not understand the laws of physics. They not only allow the possibility of stars forming, they predict the formation of stars in circumstances that are observed by astronomers.

Hi, PetVet2Be! Large animal or small? Stellar evolution (science of star development from formation through death) is part of cosmology, which is a branch of physics. As far as cosmologists are aware, there is nothing in theories of stellar evolution that violates the laws of physics as we currently understand them. Theories that include violations of the laws of physics are among the easiest to falsify (disprove), so it is very unlikely that any accepted scientific theory would include one.I'm sensing that you don't have a specific objection to the evidence for star formation, nor to the evidence for the distance or age of stars, which is what this thread is really about. I think you're more focused on the more general creationist objection that science can't make statements about things that can't be directly observed in the here and now.If this is the case then I'll again state my opinion that discussion in this thread should concern the evidence for and against the age and distance of stars. More general objections concerning the limits of scientific inquiry belong in a separate thread in the [forum=-11] forum.--Percy

The law that states that when to forces collide the stronger on wins. The heat energy from the swirling motion causes outward force which quickly overpowers the gravitational force.

In a science forum, there is not a matter of "winning" or losing.The challenge is for you to show us how you understand this law that you refer to. Remember, we are not arguing belief. We are explaining facts. Show us your sources so that we can learn from your assertions. (Welcome to Evc, by the way)

You're correct that heat will counterbalance gravity. That very principle is at work in our own sun, where the heat generated by the nuclear fusion processes in the core (around 15 million degrees Kelvin) operate against collapse due to the force of gravity.Obviously our own sun is an example of just how much heat it takes to counterbalance gravity. What makes you think that the rather less heat from a pre-star would be sufficient to prevent gravity from drawing in ever more matter?--Percy

Havn't got time for Coulter... But she is hot! (sorta...)I'm not a Liberal basher. I don't need scape goats when I have a mirror. But many Liberals and Conservatives are convinced that the world would be a better place if the opposition would just give up their sins. Far too often the political bickering sounds like the first chapter of C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity'. As a recovering Neo-New ager, turned Secular conservative, turned Born-Agian, I am pretty well versed in the general features of these political side-shows. They're a great distraction to keep people focused away from reality.As for E=mc2... I don't have a problem with it, particularly because Einstein was a believer in some sort of metaphysical reality. He was far wiser than his secular peers were, or will ever be (in my simple-minded, theistic, and uneducated opinion).I believe I've shown my ignorance of science and eagerness to seek to confirm my bias well enough, but of what I do understand, I find more in Relativity Theory (and the Quantum) to support my faith than not.An associate professor of mathematics, Sylvain Porier, at Université de la Réunion told me in a private email debate, "Jesus could not have multiplied bread and fish, because He would have violated Mass Conservation." He went into this whole complicated thing about the first law of thermodynamics and it's relation to relativity, and on and on. I have to admit he shut my mouth. I didn't know much of what he was talking about.Then the next day it dawned on me... So I sent him an email asking him why he assumed that Jesus created new matter when performing the miracle? And then I asked him why Jesus could not simply have transferred energy from one place to the other?I never heard form him again... Geuss I'm just too stupid for some folks who know a lot of 'stuff' (Well, they don't know it, but they tentatively assume it!) They do invest a lot of energy, so maybe I should not pull the rug out from under them. They're kind of sensitive...

Rob writes

quote:

---

Then the next day it dawned on me... So I sent him an email asking him why he assumed that Jesus created new matter when performing the miracle? And then I asked him why Jesus could not simply have transferred energy from one place to the other?

---

Rob, you just admitted that Jesus could have been a technologically advance alien.

How in the name of Fritjof Capra did I admit that?I live in Humboldt County, Ca... do you have a connection for the good stuff or what?He was technologically advaned allright! And alien to us, yes! But an alien? Far more alien than we realize...Whoa whoa whoa! I just got your point... And all I was saying is that we do not know how He did it. I believe Syvain got that point, because he was very engaged until a dummy like me pointed out something so simple.Even so, and assuming my explanation is true; our God does not violate Himself! That is why He is Holy; He doesn't act like us!Its like the old question: Could He build a rock so big He cannot lift it? Such questions are non-sensicle! God doesn't do stupid things.If he created the universe in such a way, so that He could not violate His own laws, then that only makes Him consistent and true. On your contrary view you might well accuse Him of hypocracy, and interference.Trust Him when He tells you He is in complete control. He just didn't want to give you 'your own truth' for eternity, until you had an opportunity to reconsider your present course.You don't see?What He created is beautiful and necessary. He is looking at the big picture. What would you change about the universe?He shows profound respect to an obstinate people, and models self control of His enormous power.This is a circus, and I think I'm the clown.We're gonna be so busted for being off topic...

Rob writes

quote:

---

How in the name of Fritjof Capra did I admit that?

---

I'll get to that after I've gotten through the other things first. Bare with me.

quote:

---

Whoa whoa whoa! I just got your point... And all I was saying is that we do not know how He did it. I believe Syvain got that point, because he was very engaged until a dummy like me pointed out something so simple.

---

I believe you were referring to that person you were exchanging email with.You seem to be very proud of yourself and holding your nose up high for having supposedly stumped an expert. In a way, you have. But it's not what you think.Experts, or at least intellectually honest people who have studied certain specific fields, do not like to converse with intellectually dishonest people and to talk about things they are not experts in. When you talk to a physicist, you can be sure that you will stump him if you introduce something like genetics or geology, that is unless he is also a geneticist or geologist.Intellectual honesty requires that you don't just pull an answer out of your ass to answer a question. Intellectual honesty requires that you are willing to say "I don't know" when you really don't know. Intellectual honesty requires that when you say you understand something, you really understand it and not just googled it in 20 seconds.For example, when I refer to the pauli exclusion principle, most people can just look it up and find out that it losely states that no 2 particles, like electrons, cannot occupy the same space. I have met many people that claim to really know what it is even though all they know is this very simplistic view of the principle. In fact, they don't even know that this principle can be derived mathematically. That is intellectual dishonesty.The person you debated with over email took the time to explain to you how certain scientific principles work. These principles have launched man into space, made it possible for manmade nuclear fission and fusion, increased dramatically the food production to accomodate for population explosions, and a myriad other things that a technical society must have to continue to exist. For most people, that takes effort. Your answer to him was intellectually dishonest for several reasons:(1) You introduced the "goddunit" explanation to stump his expertise
(2) You wandered from science (physics) into philosophy, a field he might not have been familiar with
(3) You literally pulled that answer out of your butt
(4) You introduced the "what if" factor, something that should never be used if you are intellectually honestAll of those things could have revealed to him that he was wasting his time with you and simply gave you the victory.Since the rest of your post was just a rant, I'll get to the point right now.I came to the conclusion that you admitted that Jesus could have been a technologically advance alien for several reasons. At the time, we all can agree that no civilization on Earth possessed the human know-how to do what Jesus supposedly did. You were willing to encase Jesus (God) into the science box where the parameters (laws and principles) coudn't be violated, so we all can agree that it wasn't magic Jesus was using to create those fish and bread. The possibility of the miracles being a serious of magic tricks that were exaggerated when recorded would make Jesus a scam artist, a proposition I'm sure YOU will not stand for. Aside from Jesus being a mutant like mutants in x-men, the only other explanation is Jesus possessed the technology to perform those so-called miracles and that he did not get them from any civilization on Earth at the time.

quote:

---

We're gonna be so busted for being off topic...

---

To the admins, I really don't think we are off topic. We are talking about intellectual honesty, which is part of the debate about the stars. I am trying to point out to Rob that the answers he's been making up to accomodate for the incoherence between the YEC universe and the apparent age of the stars (including data and observations). But if you're going to blank out the off topic portions of my post, I just ask that you blank out everything. Each part of my post reinforces the others. You blank out a section and my post doesn't make sense anymore (like last time).

Rob writes

quote:

---

As for E=mc2... I don't have a problem with it, particularly because Einstein was a believer in some sort of metaphysical reality. He was far wiser than his secular peers were, or will ever be (in my simple-minded, theistic, and uneducated opinion).

---

Then why do you believe that light slows down? Let me explain to you why this would be disasterous for the universe if c was not a constant.The stars, including our sun, produces energy through nuclear fusion (2 hydrogen combine to make helium and energy). C is a constant, which is the speed of light. E is energy. M is the mass. As you can see, a very tiny amount of mass would give you a lot of energy, as is very apparent in nuclear bomb testings back in the 50's.If the universe was only 6,000 years old, in order for the light from galaxies millions, hundreds of million, even billions of light years away to get to us in 6,000 years, light speed back then had to be several hundreds of millions of times larger than the current value. The energy output by the sun and other stars would have been so much that it would have lit up the cosmos. With such a tremendous energy output, no life could have existed on Earth back then.

quote:

---

I never heard form him again... Geuss I'm just too stupid for some folks who know a lot of 'stuff'

---

Again, intellectual dishonesty makes a lot of us uncomfortable.Personally, I would have been fine with a simple "God made the light travel a lot slower nowadays than thousands of years ago..."Added by edit.

quote:

---

Havn't got time for Coulter... But she is hot! (sorta...)

---

So now we know you are into anorexic chicks. For me, they make me want to volmit.Edited by rgb, : No reason given.

And you can tell us who published the proof of this? Was it you? What physicist or astrophyscicist has demonstrated this or done the math to prove it, or experiments?This is a revolutionary proof in physics, why haven't we heard more about it?lfen

Well, this is offtopic but your conclusion does not necessarily derive. Are you saying that Jesus sent his disciples out to bring back take out?
Are you saying that he "teleported" in the take out, as in "beam me up Scotty?"You didn't pull the rug out from under him. You probably shut his mouth as in, "there is no point, this guy will just manufacture miracle upon miracle as science means nothing to him, nor does logic."
Assuming he felt something like that I understand and empathize with him as we have a number of posters who never tire of doing the same thing you do, which is engage in science fiction and claim it's a scientific explanation.lfen

I CONCEDE THE THREAD TO THOSE WHO KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING...I leave you with a quote that is one of my favorites.Malcolm Muggeridge.