Gas does not compact of its own accord. We can force it to. Gravity can act on it, but it does not happen to the point of stellar compression, whatever that may be.
You have assertion on your side. Physicists have the laws of nature on theirs.
It is said that 14 billion years ago we exploded from a bang and now here we sit - everything all nice and orbiting and somewhat stable.
No, that is not what is said.
Big bang and everything is expanding outward - filling more and more volume.
This would lead to eventual loss of all heat through irrecoverable heat loss and the components slowly wearing down as there is no way to recover most of it.
Which is what is happening. Score one for physics.
There also was, at one time, the steady state universe theory. that everything has always been pretty much as it sits now. This was picked up by the ID crowd so the secular scientific crowd rejected it out of hand.
This is the funniest lie in your whole ream of nonsense.
The champion of the steady-state hypothesis was Hoyle, a fanatical atheist who hated the Big Bang (originally proposed by a Catholic priest) because it gave credence to the idea that the universe had an origin in time and so possibly a creator. Obviously Hoyle's idea that "everything has always been pretty much as it sits now" does away with a moment of creation and so with even the possibility that the universe had a creator.
It was rejected because it turned out to be wrong. The "ID crowd" did not at that point exist, and no creationist embraced Hoyle's atheistic doctrine, nor, I wager, would they have done so even if it had turned out to be true. Off topic material hidden
Do not be so quick to assume that all scientists are evolutionaries.
OK, that was even funnier. Can you really not tell the difference between 50 scientists and 50% of scientists?
What we do have is a muzzle on the ID crowd that as soon as you mention it you are labeled as religious and tossed out of the party.
If the ID crowd have been muzzled, as you claim, why do they never shut up?
It is as though we all know there is an elephant in the room - called Design - and none of us are allowed to mention it? This does not seem like science it seems like censorship of ideas.
No, you guys are allowed to talk trash all you like. And the rest of us are free to laugh at what idiots you are. This is not censorship.
A great many scientific minds were Creationist or did not engage the subject at all. The ones who were great evolutionaries have squandered there scientific life - chasing thier own tail around the Origins Question.
Here are some of the Nobel Prize winners who have, according to you, "squandered their scientific lives", though obviously not to the point of not winning Nobel Prizes:
The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept [...] Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom.
---Nobel Laureates: Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.
If only you'd "squandered" your life in such a manner, perhaps you wouldn't be a nobody posting scientifically illiterate rubbish on the Internet.
Your ignorance of everything is depressing. Go and learn something. Anything, it's all good.
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150
Again you have groups of scientists that spend entire careers convincing others that they are not promulgating a religion of secularity. Evolutionism is a secular religion.
There have been a good amount of scientists in the past that have subscribed to biblical creation as fact:
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography? Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor John Wilkins (1614–1672) Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth) James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*) John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*) Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*) Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*) Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*) David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth) William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*) William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth) Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*) Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*) Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*) William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*) Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*) Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*) Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*) Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*) Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*) Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*) William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist
I have seen the pictures of the warm gas clouds of the crab nebula - what I do not see is a new star.
Fusion is not an accident. If you can show me some fusion accident occurring somewhere - now that is science. If you say it occurs unseen - then it is religion. New stars do not form - we have never seen one form. We only see them die.
Just because someone gives you a prize does not mean you did something productive. The Smithsonian has been handing out grants and props to scientists who push the ball forward in the field of evolutionism. Nobel is no better.
What I am saying, and what you all will tear apart, is that no new discoveries are attributed to evolutionism. They are always just trying to prove it correct. In science you cannot prove anything - IT IS NOT MATH. Only math has proofs.
Evolutionism can never be proved. Creation can never be proved.
For these reasons both are religions. One just has science at its back trying to push it into science fully. Just because you call it not a religion does not make it so.
Religion, as defined by webster:
> a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices > a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
The big bang requires faith - neither you nor I were there. Since no one was there. It must be accepted on faith and faith alone.
When you insert that faith into 'science' or call it science or pass it off as science you are misleading people. You are also causing evolutionism to be a religion because you must have faith that big bang happened.
In creation we to must also have faith. We will tell you up front that it is a religion. We have science and we have scientists (at least 50 of them that published - lols ) There is entire field of creation science.
The two peoples are not alike at all. One can look at the Grand Canyon and see what happened in a couple months when Grand and Hopi lake drained through here. The other will study it for a hundred years trying to figure out were all the sediment went - 1800 cubic miles of it. (it shot out into the Gulf of california pushed by a massive flood) (if it would have happened slowly the deposition would have occured at the delta)
Google the hydroplate theory while you fume too. It does well how to explain why plate tectonics makes no sense at all.
I mean really if you push a continent at 1cm a year - but it erodes at the far beach at about a yard a year - then how far did you push it?
A: -90.44cm headway (you push to slow tectonics)
Sure the Haiwan islands build themselves, but what about Florida? No feature exists to pull sand back ashore. It has been eroding away for how long - millions of years ? thats millions of yards of erosion.
In fact I could call erosion the number one enemy of a millions of year old earth proponents. there simply is not enough of it anywhere.
Christian - loosely means someone who follows the teachings of Christ. To another degree it would mean one who believes Christ was more than just a man - the Son of God. Now as the Son of God what he says is gospel, at least for we Christians. That being said.
Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Christ is recorded making statements about creation - The creation. Either Christ is mistaken which would negate his deity. Or he is correct.
As a Christian I would hope you would side with Christ. You can side with the teachings of man if you wish. Free will is yours.
What I cannot fathom is how you can say you are a Christian, but do not believe the words of Christ. You are trusting the suppositions and a belief they hold over acts they never saw (evolution)- over Christ?
I know of the theistic evolution and the two could not be more at odds. In one time is the miracle worker, in the other God is the miracle worker.
I'll end this post before I wander off too far - but being a Christian and being also a believer in evolutionism is at odds with one another at every level. At worst you are not a Christian (since you do not believe that He is God) see John 8:24), at best you are a confused Christian.
It is rough being a biblical fundamentalist.
Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
The abundance of species was provided at creation. We have been losing them ever since. Natural selection is definite - it selects the stronger and defeats the weaker. However this is not a method for creating new species - it is a method of sending species the way of the dodo - extinct.
Men have bred diversity into dogs. But they are all of the same kind. They are all still dogs - we cannot make them cats. Nor on a planet of solely of dogs would a cat ever be born on accident.
If you would like to counter with random mutation providing new species I would point to the fruit fly - which had been bred 3000 generations by Darwin or one of his prodigy. None developed anything new - some had no wings. They all remained flies, and showed no marked improvements.