Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Cbirch go learn your theory before you try to defend it you moron.

 

[daws101]

What question ?

Minimum viable population

Don't expect me to answer something you can't prove happened 70,000 years ago.

you mean like adam and eve ?

 

[daws101]

What question ?

Minimum viable population

Don't expect me to answer something you can't prove happened 70,000 years ago.

Toba Volcano, ch.5 - Human evolution


Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution

 

[LOki]

I do hold a degree in molecular biology. I also have actual experience in molecular biology research. I worked with a team studying the effects of mutations as well.

LOLsome.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level geology.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level biology.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level physics.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level genetics.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level evolutionary theory.

Yet somehow you achieved a degree in molecular biology. And your research? How well did your Bible "Science" education and your Bible "Science" degree in Bible molecular Bible biology work out for you in the real world where your superstitions hold no intellectual validity, and your fairy tale is meaningless?

LOLsome!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Minimum viable population

Don't expect me to answer something you can't prove happened 70,000 years ago.

you mean like adam and eve ?

The worlds population is more consistent with the biblical account than the evolutionary account. Did you see the site idolphin that I posted ? If the earth was near as old as your side claims we should have a lot more fossils and especially those fossils that should show gradualism that your side claims.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I do hold a degree in molecular biology. I also have actual experience in molecular biology research. I worked with a team studying the effects of mutations as well.

LOLsome.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level geology.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level biology.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level physics.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level genetics.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level evolutionary theory.

Yet somehow you achieved a degree in molecular biology. And your research? How well did your Bible "Science" education and your Bible "Science" degree in Bible molecular Bible biology work out for you in the real world where your superstitions hold no intellectual validity, and your fairy tale is meaningless?

LOLsome!

when you fellas grow up we will continue this discussion.

 

[cbirch2]

Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?

If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen?

Where did gravity come from that held it together?

How many times have we talked about this?

Again, the singularity that resulted in the big bang was not compressed. This is a total lack of understand as to what the big bang theory claims. The singularity wasnt just sitting there and then exploded. It came into existence and continually expanded, it was not static, not even for one instant.



Again, the dot was not spinning, there was no before. It was not simply sitting there spinning, and then it exploded. According to the theory it came into existence and began rapidly expanding. It was not at a singularity for any interval of time, just a single instant.



How many times do i have to explain the big bang to you? Particles did not exist at the beginning of the big bang, only once electroweak symmetry broke as the universe cooled did particles with mass form. Ill say it again, only once electroweak symmetry broke shortly after the big bang did particles with mass form. Even if particles were present, friction sort of irrelevant. Friction is a macro concept. There is no friction between quarks, only the 4 fundamental forces of electromagnetism, strong and weak forces, and gravity.



Angular momentum does not mean everythings spinning the same way!!!!!!

Even if it did, the singularity wasnt spinning!!! It was singularity without any particles, there was no matter to spin! only energy!



Conservation of angular momentum does not say everything should be spinning the same way!!!!!!

How do you explain this ?

Its pretty simple. Your a fucking idiot that has to have absolutely everything explain to him because you get your science from creationist websites.

Read a fucking physics book you retard.

You didn't answer my questions again moron.

Here is an article that addresses your nonsense belief.

Chapter 3: Origin of the Solar System - Answers in Genesis

I answered every part of your post piece by piece.

Dont try to claim shit that isnt true just to make yourself sound like your winning. I respond to every single point you make with factual evidence, and then you skip over it all and respond with a nonsense creationist link. This is the undeniable pattern of this thread.

But as for your link:

"This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse. To counter this problem, it is suggested that some type of “shock” overcomes the gas pressure at just the right time."

LOL!

Let me explain this to you.

Imagine you have a cloud of hydrogen gas that is behaving exactly as you say. The pressure from the gas compressing counteracts the gravity, and it is static. In reality, every star is like this. That is why theyre a constant size. Some proto-stars, however, dont have enough mass to undergo sustained nuclear fusion, and they become failed stars, or brown dwarfs. See: Jupiter.

So imagine you have this brown dwarf. Gravity and outward pressure nullify eachother, its not massive enough for fusion. What happens if you add more mass? Well gravity increases, thats a given. But what happens to the outward pressure? Friction increases, but within a larger volume, so it stays constant, or at least increases less than gravity.

Therefore the size of the original cloud is what determines whether it becomes a successful star. This is 100% consistent with what we see in the universe. Brown dwarfs, stars like our own, and giants. Even white dwarf stars, neutron stars, and black holes are variations of this pressure-gravity idea. And theyre all totally consistent with what we see and what our theories are.

If you cant disprove that you cant really say shit.

 

[cbirch2]

A Simulation video proves your point

Yea it does actually.

Your claiming that known forces of physics, mostly friction between hydrogen, would prevent a star from undergoing nuclear fusion.

And im telling you that the laws of physics say no such thing. If a star is massive enough friction between particles wont prevent gravity from compressing it past the point of fusion.

If you are right, and simple laws of physics prevent star formation, shouldnt a computer model be able to replicate that? Theyre just equations, after all.

If a star is massive enough ? the universe began as a little Dot do you know your own theory ?

Once again you dodge my questions.

What questions did i dodge?

Was that first sentence a question? Or two?

Because it seems like gibberish to me.

"If a star is massive enough the universe began as a little dot do you know your own theory?"

Ok let me decipher that....

Are you saying that the universe should have collapsed in on itself shortly after the big bang, because the universe is by definition more massive than a star, and a singularity is by definition more compact than a star?

Hmmmmm.....

See: Electroweak symmetry
See: Velocity
See: Inflation
See: Spacetime

But you should mostly see the first one, since you keep showing that you clearly do not understand its consequences.

"To understand how it works consider a ferromagnet which is heated up and then chilled. Each atom inside it acts as a minature magnet. At high temperatures, they wiggle around willy-nilly, not preferring any one direction to any other. The system is, in a sense, symmetrical: the milling atoms look the same whatever the observer’s vantage point. On reaching a particular temperature, though, they suddenly pick a preferred direction, creating a uniform magnetic field. They no longer look the same to different observers.Something similar is believed to have happened with the Higgs field. At the scorching temparatures instants after the Big Bang it was in disarray and all elementary particles were oblivious to it. They were, in other words, massless. Moreover, photons, Ws and Zs all looked the same. There was no distinction between electromagnetism and the weak interaction. Instead, the three bosons conveyed the same “electroweak” force. "


This is an except for simpletons trying to explain electroweak theory and the higgs field.


In technical terms, above about 100GeV fermions exchange photons rather than Z or W bosons. The weak nuclear force, which drives radioactive decay, and the electromagnetic force can be described in the same way. They become the same force. How the higgs mechanism equates to this is slightly too complicated to explain to you. But essentially as successive symmetries break, the bosons that mediate the newly generated force (weak force, for example) interact with the higgs field and aquire mass. Had to explain without matricies....


And nope, this is not conjecture. The electroweak force is real, and nobel prizes have been awarded for it.

 

[LOki]

I do hold a degree in molecular biology. I also have actual experience in molecular biology research. I worked with a team studying the effects of mutations as well.

LOLsome.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level geology.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level biology.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level physics.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level genetics.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level evolutionary theory.

Yet somehow you achieved a degree in molecular biology. And your research? How well did your Bible "Science" education and your Bible "Science" degree in Bible molecular Bible biology work out for you in the real world where your superstitions hold no intellectual validity, and your fairy tale is meaningless?

LOLsome!

when you fellas grow up we will continue this discussion.

Looks like I score another

.

 

[Youwerecreated]

yes they do,,,your description of their causation has no basis in fact.


In the evangelical community, the year 2011 has brought a resurgence of debate over evolution. The current issue of Christianity Today asks if genetic discoveries preclude an historical Adam. While BioLogos, the brainchild of NIH director Francis Collins, is seeking to promote theistic evolution among evangelicals, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently argued that true Christians should believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it.

In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.

These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."

In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.

Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

That is exactly why creationist reject all secular science which happens to be the big bang and Macro-evolution.

What you quoted was not a metaphor in any way.

I have studied the scriptures for over 40 years and you remind me of any other one who tries to blend evolution,natural processes and God. They call it theistic evolution.

1. there is no science but secular science, creationist "science is not and cannot be science: The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[6][7] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[8][9]

Religion does not really work well with science. And of course its bias.If the creationist found evidence that did not fit their argument then they would disregard it.They will deny science before they would god.And at best its a pseudoscience like studying ghost or aliens.


" I have studied the scriptures for over 40 years and you remind me of any other one who tries to blend evolution,natural processes and God. They call it theistic evolution" -YWC

beside the faulty grammar,you've again made wrong assumptions based on your bias .
1. since I'm an atheist any reminder or similarity to any one who:"tries to blend evolution,natural processes and God." is fictitious and erroneous.
2.why I posted this:"Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution" was to point out that what you are proselytizing is at odds with your own faith, that's called a schism ( a : formal division in or separation from a church or religious body) .

3,your scripture study is in this instance is meaningless, it's not science or scientific.
All it proves is that you've read them,not understand them .
if scripture is the only thing you've studied ,then you have no context to make judgments or conclusions on events or actions that are not sanctioned by those very bias and short sighted writings .

Technically secular science is also built on faith because much of it is assumed and believed out of faith not observable evidence. Did you see Cbirch try to provide evidence that was supposedly observed but was not observed. When you believe something without actual evidence you are believing out of faith nothing more or nothing less.

Many times interpretations of evidence are later proven wrong but until that happens you believed faulty conclusions because of faulty assumptions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How many times have we talked about this?

Again, the singularity that resulted in the big bang was not compressed. This is a total lack of understand as to what the big bang theory claims. The singularity wasnt just sitting there and then exploded. It came into existence and continually expanded, it was not static, not even for one instant.



Again, the dot was not spinning, there was no before. It was not simply sitting there spinning, and then it exploded. According to the theory it came into existence and began rapidly expanding. It was not at a singularity for any interval of time, just a single instant.



How many times do i have to explain the big bang to you? Particles did not exist at the beginning of the big bang, only once electroweak symmetry broke as the universe cooled did particles with mass form. Ill say it again, only once electroweak symmetry broke shortly after the big bang did particles with mass form. Even if particles were present, friction sort of irrelevant. Friction is a macro concept. There is no friction between quarks, only the 4 fundamental forces of electromagnetism, strong and weak forces, and gravity.



Angular momentum does not mean everythings spinning the same way!!!!!!

Even if it did, the singularity wasnt spinning!!! It was singularity without any particles, there was no matter to spin! only energy!



Conservation of angular momentum does not say everything should be spinning the same way!!!!!!




Its pretty simple. Your a fucking idiot that has to have absolutely everything explain to him because you get your science from creationist websites.

Read a fucking physics book you retard.

You didn't answer my questions again moron.

Here is an article that addresses your nonsense belief.

Chapter 3: Origin of the Solar System - Answers in Genesis

I answered every part of your post piece by piece.

Dont try to claim shit that isnt true just to make yourself sound like your winning. I respond to every single point you make with factual evidence, and then you skip over it all and respond with a nonsense creationist link. This is the undeniable pattern of this thread.

But as for your link:

"This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse. To counter this problem, it is suggested that some type of “shock” overcomes the gas pressure at just the right time."

LOL!

Let me explain this to you.

Imagine you have a cloud of hydrogen gas that is behaving exactly as you say. The pressure from the gas compressing counteracts the gravity, and it is static. In reality, every star is like this. That is why theyre a constant size. Some proto-stars, however, dont have enough mass to undergo sustained nuclear fusion, and they become failed stars, or brown dwarfs. See: Jupiter.

So imagine you have this brown dwarf. Gravity and outward pressure nullify eachother, its not massive enough for fusion. What happens if you add more mass? Well gravity increases, thats a given. But what happens to the outward pressure? Friction increases, but within a larger volume, so it stays constant, or at least increases less than gravity.

Therefore the size of the original cloud is what determines whether it becomes a successful star. This is 100% consistent with what we see in the universe. Brown dwarfs, stars like our own, and giants. Even white dwarf stars, neutron stars, and black holes are variations of this pressure-gravity idea. And theyre all totally consistent with what we see and what our theories are.

If you cant disprove that you cant really say shit.

Like I said you can theorize anything you like but it does not prove thats how it happens get it ?

The nebular hypothesis is simply a story to describe what may have happened in the prehistoric solar system. There are no observations to support the claims that natural processes over millions of years could form a solar system.

Do you remember this comment you made.


the early earth had a reducing atmosphere?

Evolutionists assume that the early earth lacked oxygen because life could not evolve in an environment containing oxygen. If this were true, the rocks older than 1.9 billion years should contain no evidence of being formed in an environment with oxygen. Iron deposits from these rock layers indicate an environment with oxygen. The lack of sulfide deposits and the presence of sulfates and other oxygen bearing compounds also point to an oxidizing environment. These and other evidences point to an atmosphere that contained oxygen from its beginning.

 

[LOki]

Technically secular science is also built on faith because much of it is assumed and believed out of faith not observable evidence.

Untrue. Entirely untrue. In no way what-so-ever does science make any assertions that are in denial of verifiable evidence an/or valid logic. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, it would not be science.

Did you see Cbirch try to provide evidence that was supposedly observed but was not observed.

And you continue to pretend that the application of VALID logic to verifiable evidence is insufficiently different from making up something from nothing and applying logical fallacies to rationalize lack of intellectual rigor, so that the two are the same.

YOUR SUPERSTITIONS ARE NOT SCIENCE!

When you believe something without actual evidence you are believing out of faith nothing more or nothing less.

NO! VALID logic counts.

Many times interpretations of evidence are later proven wrong but until that happens you believed faulty conclusions because of faulty assumptions.

The entirety of your superstition is based upon invalid logic and denial of reality ... making them intellectually invalid.

This is not about you simply having your facts wrong YWC; it's not that you're simply ignorant, having no idea what others are talking about or what you are talking about; YOU are wrong. Your thinking is INVALID; your conclusions are INVALID; your intellectual paradigm where your beliefs are validated against your belief that they are valid is INVALID.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow. Just wow.

Thats why the cloud of hydrogen has to be massive enough so that the gravitational pressure causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.

Of course the pressure counteracts the gravity at a certain point, thats why a star doesnt collapse entirely, and is stable. At a certain point, force pushing out and force pushing in are equal. If pressure pushing in is great enough, the star ignites.

Your wrong. By your logic, hydrogen fusion is not possible in any setting. Because atoms will always just push each other apart. Again, your wrong.

Idk how many times i have to say it, your wrong.

A Simulation video proves your point

Yea it does actually.

Your claiming that known forces of physics, mostly friction between hydrogen, would prevent a star from undergoing nuclear fusion.

And im telling you that the laws of physics say no such thing. If a star is massive enough friction between particles wont prevent gravity from compressing it past the point of fusion.

If you are right, and simple laws of physics prevent star formation, shouldnt a computer model be able to replicate that? Theyre just equations, after all.

The recent observations of the six Herbig Ae/Be stars showed that for two cases gas was falling into the star, and, for the other four, gas was moving outward away from the star or from a disk around the star. Stars go through a variety of stages as they age. In some of these stages there are particularly strong stellar winds made up of charged particles that flow outward from the star, driving gas away from the star. However some stars are “quieter” so that gas is more likely to be pulled into the star by gravity. Either of these processes is possible in a creation view, so these observations are not surprising.

From a creation viewpoint, the interesting questions raised by these observations are about the age of the disks and which came first, the star or the disk. What was created in the Creation Week? Was it the star, the disk, or were both created by God at the same time? Was the star formed out of the disk at creation, though perhaps in a supernatural manner? Young-universe creationist scientists research these questions and have various opinions. It is important to note that just because gas is observed falling into the star, this does not necessarily mean that the disk had anything to do with the formation of the star.

There are always other possibilities that scientists with evolutionary assumptions do not consider. Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago. The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks.2 Astronomers have generally believed that older stars could not still have dust disks. This calls into question the old-age assumptions regarding these disks and the stars found with them. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, “We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.”3

The clouds in space that surround many stars are often as large as or larger than our entire solar system. This may suggest that the cloud has been there since Creation. However, some stars are found with smaller disks of dust and gas that could have originated in a collision of planets (extrasolar planets) orbiting the star.4,5 Extrasolar planets outside our own solar system are sometimes in elliptical orbits that could make planet collisions more likely than would be the case in our own solar system. There are over 200 cases of what are believed to be planets orbiting other stars.6 The existence of planets orbiting other stars does not conflict with a creation viewpoint, though Christians have reason to be skeptical about naturalistic planet origins theories.7

If some disks formed from collisions since creation, these disks would be very young in age and limited in size. On the other hand, if the disks were created in the Creation Week, they would still be only several thousand years old. An age of thousands of years means that the amount of change in the disk since the beginning would be limited. This seems to agree with this report about the six Herbig Ae/Be stars, which said that some of the stars had dust present closer to the star than was expected considering the temperature.8 It is not surprising to find evidence of gas near the star, but these observations suggest there are microscopic dust grains close to the star. Evolutionary scientists would expect that in millions of years, dust very near the star would be driven away or would be vaporized.

How young?

So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, e.g., gas shielding the dust from the star’s light. This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear.


Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis

 

[daws101]

Don't expect me to answer something you can't prove happened 70,000 years ago.

you mean like adam and eve ?

The worlds population is more consistent with the biblical account than the evolutionary account. Did you see the site idolphin that I posted ? If the earth was near as old as your side claims we should have a lot more fossils and especially those fossils that should show gradualism that your side claims.

no it's not and your site is a steaming pile

if you knew anything about how fossils are formed your posts do not reflect it
THERE ARE NO SHOULDS IN SCIENCE , SHIT HAPPENS OR IT DOESN'T.

the reason fossils are rare is simple, MOST creatures including man do not die under the proper conditions for fossilization most, decompose in to dust or are eaten by other creatures till nothing is left .
this was also true of humans for most of our prehistory .
if it weren't for the invention of burial practices there would be even less.
you, even in your intentional ignorance would have to realize for something to be fossilized the conditions have to be ideal.

 

[daws101]

Technically secular science is also built on faith because much of it is assumed and believed out of faith not observable evidence.

Untrue. Entirely untrue. In no way what-so-ever does science make any assertions that are in denial of verifiable evidence an/or valid logic. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, it would not be science.

Did you see Cbirch try to provide evidence that was supposedly observed but was not observed.

And you continue to pretend that the application of VALID logic to verifiable evidence is insufficiently different from making up something from nothing and applying logical fallacies to rationalize lack of intellectual rigor, so that the two are the same.

YOUR SUPERSTITIONS ARE NOT SCIENCE!

When you believe something without actual evidence you are believing out of faith nothing more or nothing less.

NO! VALID logic counts.

Many times interpretations of evidence are later proven wrong but until that happens you believed faulty conclusions because of faulty assumptions.

The entirety of your superstition is based upon invalid logic and denial of reality ... making them intellectually invalid.

This is not about you simply having your facts wrong YWC; it's not that you're simply ignorant, having no idea what others are talking about or what you are talking about; YOU are wrong. Your thinking is INVALID; your conclusions are INVALID; your intellectual paradigm where your beliefs are validated against your belief that they are valid is INVALID.

bump!

 

[daws101]

A Simulation video proves your point

Yea it does actually.

Your claiming that known forces of physics, mostly friction between hydrogen, would prevent a star from undergoing nuclear fusion.

And im telling you that the laws of physics say no such thing. If a star is massive enough friction between particles wont prevent gravity from compressing it past the point of fusion.

If you are right, and simple laws of physics prevent star formation, shouldnt a computer model be able to replicate that? Theyre just equations, after all.

The recent observations of the six Herbig Ae/Be stars showed that for two cases gas was falling into the star, and, for the other four, gas was moving outward away from the star or from a disk around the star. Stars go through a variety of stages as they age. In some of these stages there are particularly strong stellar winds made up of charged particles that flow outward from the star, driving gas away from the star. However some stars are “quieter” so that gas is more likely to be pulled into the star by gravity. Either of these processes is possible in a creation view, so these observations are not surprising.

From a creation viewpoint, the interesting questions raised by these observations are about the age of the disks and which came first, the star or the disk. What was created in the Creation Week? Was it the star, the disk, or were both created by God at the same time? Was the star formed out of the disk at creation, though perhaps in a supernatural manner? Young-universe creationist scientists research these questions and have various opinions. It is important to note that just because gas is observed falling into the star, this does not necessarily mean that the disk had anything to do with the formation of the star.

There are always other possibilities that scientists with evolutionary assumptions do not consider. Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago. The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks.2 Astronomers have generally believed that older stars could not still have dust disks. This calls into question the old-age assumptions regarding these disks and the stars found with them. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, “We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.”3

The clouds in space that surround many stars are often as large as or larger than our entire solar system. This may suggest that the cloud has been there since Creation. However, some stars are found with smaller disks of dust and gas that could have originated in a collision of planets (extrasolar planets) orbiting the star.4,5 Extrasolar planets outside our own solar system are sometimes in elliptical orbits that could make planet collisions more likely than would be the case in our own solar system. There are over 200 cases of what are believed to be planets orbiting other stars.6 The existence of planets orbiting other stars does not conflict with a creation viewpoint, though Christians have reason to be skeptical about naturalistic planet origins theories.7

If some disks formed from collisions since creation, these disks would be very young in age and limited in size. On the other hand, if the disks were created in the Creation Week, they would still be only several thousand years old. An age of thousands of years means that the amount of change in the disk since the beginning would be limited. This seems to agree with this report about the six Herbig Ae/Be stars, which said that some of the stars had dust present closer to the star than was expected considering the temperature.8 It is not surprising to find evidence of gas near the star, but these observations suggest there are microscopic dust grains close to the star. Evolutionary scientists would expect that in millions of years, dust very near the star would be driven away or would be vaporized.

How young?

So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, e.g., gas shielding the dust from the star’s light. This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear.


Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis

non credible site ,conjecture only no evidence

 

[daws101]

Is there any evidence that backs up the creation theory? No.


If you refer to creationism or "creation science", no. In the first place, there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.

Further to this, there is no evidence to support the few basic claims made by creationists, such as a young earth/universe, direct creation 'as-is' of all species, and most of the myths in the Old Testament (such as Noah's flood). All evidence suggests the complete opposite: an old earth and universe, gradual development of biodiversity, and the absence of any such major events as a global flood.

Many creationists and creationist institutes have been founded to attempt furthering both "research" into the subject in favour of the idea, and to continue a basic propaganda mission in favour of converting people to that view. The few real research projects undertaken by these groups have completely invalidated their own initial ideas, notably for example the RATE project. Most otehr work consists of misinterpreting, misapplying and misunderstanding much of modern science, and ignoring basic techniques required to ensure validity and accuracy in the conclusions reached.

In effect - and this has been demonstrated in both legal and true scientific fields - creationism and its offshoots are simply attempts to insert religion into the secular world, almost invariably under direction from fundamentalist Christian sects.



Read more: Is there any evidence that backs up the creation theory

 

[cbirch2]

You didn't answer my questions again moron.

Here is an article that addresses your nonsense belief.

Chapter 3: Origin of the Solar System - Answers in Genesis

I answered every part of your post piece by piece.

Dont try to claim shit that isnt true just to make yourself sound like your winning. I respond to every single point you make with factual evidence, and then you skip over it all and respond with a nonsense creationist link. This is the undeniable pattern of this thread.

But as for your link:

"This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse. To counter this problem, it is suggested that some type of “shock” overcomes the gas pressure at just the right time."

LOL!

Let me explain this to you.

Imagine you have a cloud of hydrogen gas that is behaving exactly as you say. The pressure from the gas compressing counteracts the gravity, and it is static. In reality, every star is like this. That is why theyre a constant size. Some proto-stars, however, dont have enough mass to undergo sustained nuclear fusion, and they become failed stars, or brown dwarfs. See: Jupiter.

So imagine you have this brown dwarf. Gravity and outward pressure nullify eachother, its not massive enough for fusion. What happens if you add more mass? Well gravity increases, thats a given. But what happens to the outward pressure? Friction increases, but within a larger volume, so it stays constant, or at least increases less than gravity.

Therefore the size of the original cloud is what determines whether it becomes a successful star. This is 100% consistent with what we see in the universe. Brown dwarfs, stars like our own, and giants. Even white dwarf stars, neutron stars, and black holes are variations of this pressure-gravity idea. And theyre all totally consistent with what we see and what our theories are.

If you cant disprove that you cant really say shit.

Like I said you can theorize anything you like but it does not prove thats how it happens get it ?

Your probably one of those people that are against vaccines as well, arent you?

This is not theory. We can perform nuclear fusion in a lab you fucking moron. Its just gravity, which is very much described by equations, and the charges of particles, which is also very much described by equations.

Your basically doubting all of physics here. Gravity and matter must act differently far away...

The nebular hypothesis is simply a story to describe what may have happened in the prehistoric solar system. There are no observations to support the claims that natural processes over millions of years could form a solar system.

Well probably because we cant observe things for billions of years.

Either a nebula that is massive enough will collapse in on itself and undergo fusion, or gravity and nuclear physic are both wrong. There is no other options. We can perform nuclear fusion in a laboratory. Gravity is one of the best measured forces.

So which one is it? Do nebulas form stars, or are gravity and physics 100% wrong?

Do you remember this comment you made.


the early earth had a reducing atmosphere?

Evolutionists assume that the early earth lacked oxygen because life could not evolve in an environment containing oxygen. If this were true, the rocks older than 1.9 billion years should contain no evidence of being formed in an environment with oxygen. Iron deposits from these rock layers indicate an environment with oxygen. The lack of sulfide deposits and the presence of sulfates and other oxygen bearing compounds also point to an oxidizing environment. These and other evidences point to an atmosphere that contained oxygen from its beginning.

No, we do not claim that. See this is where you misunderstanding of oxygen and atoms and chemistry and even the conservation of energy/mass and what constitutes a single element....

Oxygen remained trapped in minerals exactly like iron, and was unable to react with organic particles, because it was already bound to those minerals. Your statement just makes no sense to anyone that understands it. In the early earth most oxygen is already bound to inorganic minerals like iron. Its not in the atmosphere to react with organic molecules.

And i would probably say evolution is exactly in line with this theory.

Early organisms were anaerobic prokaryotes, they didnt need oxygen. All eukaryote evolves from them, and retain chemical processes like glycolysis from those days.

 

[cbirch2]

A Simulation video proves your point

Yea it does actually.

Your claiming that known forces of physics, mostly friction between hydrogen, would prevent a star from undergoing nuclear fusion.

And im telling you that the laws of physics say no such thing. If a star is massive enough friction between particles wont prevent gravity from compressing it past the point of fusion.

If you are right, and simple laws of physics prevent star formation, shouldnt a computer model be able to replicate that? Theyre just equations, after all.

The recent observations of the six Herbig Ae/Be stars showed that for two cases gas was falling into the star, and, for the other four, gas was moving outward away from the star or from a disk around the star. Stars go through a variety of stages as they age. In some of these stages there are particularly strong stellar winds made up of charged particles that flow outward from the star, driving gas away from the star. However some stars are “quieter” so that gas is more likely to be pulled into the star by gravity. Either of these processes is possible in a creation view, so these observations are not surprising.

Only stars that are already undergoing nuclear fusion are emitting a vast amount of solar wind.

Understand how this works please. Hydrogen has just one proton and one electron. With enough energy (called ionization energy) the electron will fly away from the proton. Youll have a plasma, just a cloud of protons and electrons. Some lights work on a similar process, this is a mundane process. The only outward force counteracting gravity is the force repelling like particles. If gravitational pressure passes a certain point protons will begin to fuse, and the star will have been born.

Im just not sure how you can deny this. Again, either gravity and physics is wrong, or your wrong. Sorry, ill stick with Albert Einstein and Paul Dirac.

From a creation viewpoint, the interesting questions raised by these observations are about the age of the disks and which came first, the star or the disk. What was created in the Creation Week? Was it the star, the disk, or were both created by God at the same time? Was the star formed out of the disk at creation, though perhaps in a supernatural manner? Young-universe creationist scientists research these questions and have various opinions. It is important to note that just because gas is observed falling into the star, this does not necessarily mean that the disk had anything to do with the formation of the star.

Blah blah blah. Useless questions that will never answer. Those are not science. Young earth "scientists"

Werent you the one babbling on with something like "pics or it didnt happen". Now your "investigating" whether god created the star and the disk at the same time. Wow. Scientists is not an appropriate term. More like "morons playing imagination time."

When jesus comes back call me up. otherwise think of me on your death bed and realize ive won.

There are always other possibilities that scientists with evolutionary assumptions do not consider. Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago. The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks.2 Astronomers have generally believed that older stars could not still have dust disks. This calls into question the old-age assumptions regarding these disks and the stars found with them. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, “We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.”3

The clouds in space that surround many stars are often as large as or larger than our entire solar system. This may suggest that the cloud has been there since Creation. However, some stars are found with smaller disks of dust and gas that could have originated in a collision of planets (extrasolar planets) orbiting the star.4,5 Extrasolar planets outside our own solar system are sometimes in elliptical orbits that could make planet collisions more likely than would be the case in our own solar system. There are over 200 cases of what are believed to be planets orbiting other stars.6 The existence of planets orbiting other stars does not conflict with a creation viewpoint, though Christians have reason to be skeptical about naturalistic planet origins theories.7

If some disks formed from collisions since creation, these disks would be very young in age and limited in size. On the other hand, if the disks were created in the Creation Week, they would still be only several thousand years old. An age of thousands of years means that the amount of change in the disk since the beginning would be limited. This seems to agree with this report about the six Herbig Ae/Be stars, which said that some of the stars had dust present closer to the star than was expected considering the temperature.8 It is not surprising to find evidence of gas near the star, but these observations suggest there are microscopic dust grains close to the star. Evolutionary scientists would expect that in millions of years, dust very near the star would be driven away or would be vaporized.

How young?

So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, e.g., gas shielding the dust from the star’s light. This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear.


Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis

Dude, why do you keep linking to creationist web sites. No one cares.

Your arguments are idiotic. Nebulas dont form stars because we see all different kinds of nebulas? What?

Thats the dumbest shit.....

I dont know how much longer i can keep wading through this total perversion of science and trying to untangle it all.

Its easy to argue against a concept that you dont even understand fully. No one with a knowledge of nuclear physics would question how a star is born. its a very basic process.

You must learn about the very small before you can comprehend the very large.

You dont understand either.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you mean like adam and eve ?

The worlds population is more consistent with the biblical account than the evolutionary account. Did you see the site idolphin that I posted ? If the earth was near as old as your side claims we should have a lot more fossils and especially those fossils that should show gradualism that your side claims.

no it's not and your site is a steaming pile

if you knew anything about how fossils are formed your posts do not reflect it
THERE ARE NO SHOULDS IN SCIENCE , SHIT HAPPENS OR IT DOESN'T.

the reason fossils are rare is simple, MOST creatures including man do not die under the proper conditions for fossilization most, decompose in to dust or are eaten by other creatures till nothing is left .
this was also true of humans for most of our prehistory .
if it weren't for the invention of burial practices there would be even less.
you, even in your intentional ignorance would have to realize for something to be fossilized the conditions have to be ideal.

You had better get to class because science makes predictions and then tries testing their predictions..