Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
102 online now:
CosmicChimp, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 100 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,047 Year: 5,159/6,534 Month: 2/577 Week: 70/135 Day: 1/1 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The not so distant star light problem
Member (Idle past 2123 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009

Message 101 of 111 (712310)
12-02-2013 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by AZPaul3
11-30-2013 5:51 AM

Re: Is that your final answer?
You captured Oni and Straggler

Normal Thread:
The Great Debate:
Faith and Belief:
Free for All:
Creationist Rant:
Peanut Gallery

Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by AZPaul3, posted 11-30-2013 5:51 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message

Member (Idle past 2123 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009

Message 103 of 111 (713774)
12-16-2013 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by PlanManStan
12-15-2013 10:30 PM

Re: I will try
Ah, a tease.

Another problem for YECs with respect to the sun is its metallization. It is a population I star and has heavy elements (as well as H and He) created and spewed into space from previous population II stars which in turn were preceded by population III stars which contained no heavy elements.

Why did God sprinkle the sun with useless heavy elements if it was designed and built rather than a natural formation? Why did he put so much Helium in it rather than simply use Hydrogen? It's from the amount of Helium in the sun that we infer its age.

This is for the YECs that argue that we haven't found any population III stars yet and with that toss astronomy/cosmology under the bus.

And this will provide the data that will remove another straw clutched by the YECs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by PlanManStan, posted 12-15-2013 10:30 PM PlanManStan has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2013 6:51 PM shalamabobbi has replied

Member (Idle past 2123 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009

Message 105 of 111 (714657)
12-25-2013 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by NoNukes
12-16-2013 6:51 PM

Re: I will try
Hey NN,
We've been traveling during quarter break and are back now.

How do you get a solar system without some heavy elements? Seriously, isn't this question only meaningful when posed to the few YECs who believe in the scientific hypotheses about planet formation? By my count that's about 8 people on earth.

Yes, and I am corresponding with one of them now, Kent Hovind. Back and forth about once a week though we are not currently debating anything. Just trying to get him interested in posting on the forum. He may not have much keyboard time allotted each 24hrs. I asked about that in my last email.

I guess the idea is since for a YEC the solar system is not a naturally formed thing the question arises as to why the inclusion of heavier elements in the creation of the sun? We have to think about the creation of elements from a YEC perspective as "Let there be O, N, Fe, etc". Maybe a nit but an interesting one. 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.

Like I stated before every little bit helps, for some at least. One more thing to ponder.

the sun was created similarly mature because a middle age sun works better than those newly created, barely stable ones.

This would likely be a reasonable explanation for a creationist, which returns us to the significance of the metals that tell the tale of natural formation rather than creationism. 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?

So now the YEC theory is not just the creation of things with the appearance of age, but the creation of things with the appearance of natural formation from previous things of even greater age that no longer even exist when 'creation' took place. Quite a convoluted theory it would seem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2013 6:51 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 12-25-2013 6:17 PM shalamabobbi has taken no action

Member (Idle past 2123 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.

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.


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:

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


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 taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022