Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
non credible site ,conjecture only no evidenceYea 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
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.
for abiogenesis you are a liar or have a very short memory.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
dodge!!no it's not and your site is a steaming pileThe 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.
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..
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.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
Evidence for a young earth and universe.
Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVcjMBJuLMo]Creation Astronomy - 15 Evidences for a Young Universe - YouTube[/ame]
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.non credible site ,conjecture only no evidenceThe 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 stars 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
Conjecture what do you think the big bang is based on as well as evolution
Really conjecture ? The rings would most certianly be destroyed by the heat not to mention the winds. That is evidence of a young universe.
Then how do you explain planets without these rings ?
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.Go here to learn more about creation evidence of a young earth and universe.
4th Day Alliance | Creationism, Creation Science, and Creation Astronomy Mega Site
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.Here are the 15 evidences so you do not have to look for them.
4th Day Alliance | Creationism, Creation Science, and Creation Astronomy | 15 Evidences for the Age of the Universe
YWC, how old do you think the universe is? Are you going by the same age as the earth, somewhere in the 10-20,000 year range?
Does this belief line up with something like the speed of light?; we should not be able to see a star that is greater than 10-20,000 light years away, as the light would not have had time to reach here yet.
dodge!!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..
wrong!......science is at it's core the study of evidence, evidence of actions, evidence of things etc.. scientists only make prediction when there is sufficient EVIDENCE to do so THERE IS NO TRY TO TEST, THERE IS ONLY TESTING.
(TESTING, A THING CREATIONIST'S NEVER DO!
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.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
Evidence for a young earth and universe.
Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVcjMBJuLMo]Creation Astronomy - 15 Evidences for a Young Universe - YouTube[/ame]
They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.
dodge!!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..
wrong!......science is at it's core the study of evidence, evidence of actions, evidence of things etc.. scientists only make prediction when there is sufficient EVIDENCE to do so THERE IS NO TRY TO TEST, THERE IS ONLY TESTING.
(TESTING, A THING CREATIONIST'S NEVER DO!
YWC's cosmology gets pwn't.
Like I said, "You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry; ... no understanding of legitimate high-school level physics."YWC's cosmology gets pwn't.
What is your point ?
Take and lite a cigarette put it in a glass bottle put a lid on it what happens to the cigarette ? Camp fire how do you get it going ? by fanning it. The sun does need many chemicals or it would go out.
What lit the sun ?
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...
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.
You first used that very argument nitwit
