Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

O wow i would love to hear how black holes contradict the big bang.

Id love to teach you what a black hole is as well.

Besides, dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang.

Didn't say black holes are a problem for the big bang if that is what i said it was typo. It is however a problenm for evolution.

No black holes have yet been positively identified, and not all astronomers accept their existence. But even if black holes do exist, they give no support to the theory of evolution. Black holes are simply in line with the fact that the universe is decaying. Things do not spontaneously improve and become more orderly, as evolution theory would have people believe. They decay, run down, and lose their orderliness.

This is completely in line with creationist thinking. But it does not lend support to the evolutionary idea that today’s complexity has evolved and become more ordered from the chaos of long ago.

Black Holes in Space Don

Well its actually completely in line with scientific thinking as well. Just because stars "decay", doesnt mean everything does at every moment. Stars are, by and large, closed systems. So entropy applies to it, but not to life.

No black hole has ever been positively identified?

Seriously?

Are you ******* stupid?

Newly Discovered Black Holes Are Largest So Far : NPR

Are you really that ******* stupid?

these kind of posts just show you being threatened and are desperate.

 

[cbirch2]

Yes it was certainly explosion by the way it's taught.

Are you still claiming the big bang was a chemical explosion? Wow.

Were gonna have to talk about this. If you cant even understand this simple concept were done.



What? There is actually evidence for these things. There is evidence that the moon formed via impact with the earth.

That is their reasoning because they see the the universe expanding.

Exactly right. We see the universe expanding. We see it. We witness it. Its been observed.

Game over, you lose.

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature


No God is causing the exspansion.

Psa 104:2 covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain;

You are so wrong.

Im not wrong. The big bang can be thought of as an explosion, but it was not a chemical explosion.

If you think the big bang was a chemical explosion, then were done with this debate because you clearly dont understand anything.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The obvious point is no mutations can take over a gene pool.

Any mutation, bad or good, is passed along just like any other gene during reproduction.

The extent to which it dominates a gene pool is determined by the role that the mutation has on survival.

This is the difference between mendelian and darwinian genetics.

A beneficial mutation, or a neutral mutation, flow through the gene pool just like every other normal gene does.

When your looking at just reproduction between two indiviuals, as opposed to the population as a whole, even bad mutations are passed on like any other gene.

Do you get it now?

Whoa you just contradicted yourself.

 

[cbirch2]

Didn't say black holes are a problem for the big bang if that is what i said it was typo. It is however a problenm for evolution.

No black holes have yet been positively identified, and not all astronomers accept their existence. But even if black holes do exist, they give no support to the theory of evolution. Black holes are simply in line with the fact that the universe is decaying. Things do not spontaneously improve and become more orderly, as evolution theory would have people believe. They decay, run down, and lose their orderliness.

This is completely in line with creationist thinking. But it does not lend support to the evolutionary idea that today’s complexity has evolved and become more ordered from the chaos of long ago.

Black Holes in Space Don

Well its actually completely in line with scientific thinking as well. Just because stars "decay", doesnt mean everything does at every moment. Stars are, by and large, closed systems. So entropy applies to it, but not to life.

No black hole has ever been positively identified?

Seriously?

Are you ******* stupid?

Newly Discovered Black Holes Are Largest So Far : NPR

Are you really that ******* stupid?

these kind of posts just show you being threatened and are desperate.

They do?

Granted im frustrated at your ignorance.

But how can you possibly claim that no black hole has ever been shown to exist?

That is a ignorant statement, it flies in the face of all facts.

Your saying my statement smacks of desperation, but at least i couple my insults with facts and sources.

You just dodge my facts.

 

[cbirch2]

The obvious point is no mutations can take over a gene pool.

Any mutation, bad or good, is passed along just like any other gene during reproduction.

The extent to which it dominates a gene pool is determined by the role that the mutation has on survival.

This is the difference between mendelian and darwinian genetics.

A beneficial mutation, or a neutral mutation, flow through the gene pool just like every other normal gene does.

When your looking at just reproduction between two indiviuals, as opposed to the population as a whole, even bad mutations are passed on like any other gene.

Do you get it now?

Whoa you just contradicted yourself.

No i didnt. Please tell me where.

I think you dont understand the difference between mendelian and darwinian genetics

During any single act of reproduction, a mutation is passed along just like any other gene segment. Even if its a harmful one.

But the dominance of that mutation in the gene pool of the population is dependent on the health of the organisms that carry it.

Get it?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you still claiming the big bang was a chemical explosion? Wow.

Were gonna have to talk about this. If you cant even understand this simple concept were done.



What? There is actually evidence for these things. There is evidence that the moon formed via impact with the earth.



Exactly right. We see the universe expanding. We see it. We witness it. Its been observed.

Game over, you lose.

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature


No God is causing the exspansion.

Psa 104:2 covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain;

You are so wrong.

Im not wrong. The big bang can be thought of as an explosion, but it was not a chemical explosion.

If you think the big bang was a chemical explosion, then were done with this debate because you clearly dont understand anything.

So where did all the water come from ?

We observe chemical elements made in the Big Bang.
In the 1940's, the physicist George Gamow and his colleagues realized that the early universe must have been extremely hot as well as dense. Scientists were just beginning to understand that under great heat and density, chemical elements can be transformed from one into the other. Gamow and his colleagues calculated that for a hot, dense, and expanding universe about one-quarter of the simplest chemical element - hydrogen - would have been "cooked" into the element helium. Astronomers have measured the proportion of hydrogen and helium scattered through our universe, and it matches the prediction perfectly. This was strong evidence that the early universe was hot as well as dense.

--Universe Forum--Big Bang--What was it?

I guess we are done and you don't know what you're talking about other then theory.

 

[cbirch2]

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature


No God is causing the exspansion.

Psa 104:2 covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain;

You are so wrong.

Im not wrong. The big bang can be thought of as an explosion, but it was not a chemical explosion.

If you think the big bang was a chemical explosion, then were done with this debate because you clearly dont understand anything.

So where did all the water come from ?

We observe chemical elements made in the Big Bang.
In the 1940's, the physicist George Gamow and his colleagues realized that the early universe must have been extremely hot as well as dense. Scientists were just beginning to understand that under great heat and density, chemical elements can be transformed from one into the other. Gamow and his colleagues calculated that for a hot, dense, and expanding universe about one-quarter of the simplest chemical element - hydrogen - would have been "cooked" into the element helium. Astronomers have measured the proportion of hydrogen and helium scattered through our universe, and it matches the prediction perfectly. This was strong evidence that the early universe was hot as well as dense.

--Universe Forum--Big Bang--What was it?

I guess we are done and you don't know what you're talking about other then theory.

Hydrogen and helium atoms were only able to form after electroweak symmetry broke!!!! Do i need to post that graphic again!?! The chemical elements hydrogen and helium were formed shortly after the big bang as the universe cooled, but they did not exist as atoms at the first moment of the big bang.

And wtf are you talking about water?

Water was certainly not present at the time of the big bang!

 

[Youwerecreated]

O wow i would love to hear how black holes contradict the big bang.

Id love to teach you what a black hole is as well.

Besides, dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang.

Didn't say black holes are a problem for the big bang if that is what i said it was typo. It is however a problenm for evolution.

No black holes have yet been positively identified, and not all astronomers accept their existence. But even if black holes do exist, they give no support to the theory of evolution. Black holes are simply in line with the fact that the universe is decaying. Things do not spontaneously improve and become more orderly, as evolution theory would have people believe. They decay, run down, and lose their orderliness.

This is completely in line with creationist thinking. But it does not lend support to the evolutionary idea that today’s complexity has evolved and become more ordered from the chaos of long ago.

Black Holes in Space Don

Well its actually completely in line with scientific thinking as well. Just because stars "decay", doesnt mean everything does at every moment. Stars are, by and large, closed systems. So entropy applies to it, but not to life.

No black hole has ever been positively identified?

Seriously?

Are you ******* stupid?

Newly Discovered Black Holes Are Largest So Far : NPR

Are you really that ******* stupid?

Really by looking into a spot in space seeing absolutely nothing is evidence There goes that active imagination again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Im not wrong. The big bang can be thought of as an explosion, but it was not a chemical explosion.

If you think the big bang was a chemical explosion, then were done with this debate because you clearly dont understand anything.

So where did all the water come from ?

We observe chemical elements made in the Big Bang.
In the 1940's, the physicist George Gamow and his colleagues realized that the early universe must have been extremely hot as well as dense. Scientists were just beginning to understand that under great heat and density, chemical elements can be transformed from one into the other. Gamow and his colleagues calculated that for a hot, dense, and expanding universe about one-quarter of the simplest chemical element - hydrogen - would have been "cooked" into the element helium. Astronomers have measured the proportion of hydrogen and helium scattered through our universe, and it matches the prediction perfectly. This was strong evidence that the early universe was hot as well as dense.

--Universe Forum--Big Bang--What was it?

I guess we are done and you don't know what you're talking about other then theory.

Hydrogen and helium atoms were only able to form after electroweak symmetry broke!!!! Do i need to post that graphic again!?! The chemical elements hydrogen and helium were formed shortly after the big bang as the universe cooled, but they did not exist as atoms at the first moment of the big bang.

And wtf are you talking about water?

Water was certainly not present at the time of the big bang!

Water is a chemical and it's found on other planets isn't it ? Where did it come from ?

 

[cbirch2]

Didn't say black holes are a problem for the big bang if that is what i said it was typo. It is however a problenm for evolution.

No black holes have yet been positively identified, and not all astronomers accept their existence. But even if black holes do exist, they give no support to the theory of evolution. Black holes are simply in line with the fact that the universe is decaying. Things do not spontaneously improve and become more orderly, as evolution theory would have people believe. They decay, run down, and lose their orderliness.

This is completely in line with creationist thinking. But it does not lend support to the evolutionary idea that today’s complexity has evolved and become more ordered from the chaos of long ago.

Black Holes in Space Don

Well its actually completely in line with scientific thinking as well. Just because stars "decay", doesnt mean everything does at every moment. Stars are, by and large, closed systems. So entropy applies to it, but not to life.

No black hole has ever been positively identified?

Seriously?

Are you ******* stupid?

Newly Discovered Black Holes Are Largest So Far : NPR

Are you really that ******* stupid?

Really by looking into a spot in space seeing absolutely nothing is evidence There goes thaty imagination again.

yea because thats how astronomers look for black holes.

Lmao wow.


Lets just pretend gravity doesnt exist huh? And that matter about to fall past the event horizon doesnt emit specific x ray radiation

 

[cbirch2]

So where did all the water come from ?

We observe chemical elements made in the Big Bang.
In the 1940's, the physicist George Gamow and his colleagues realized that the early universe must have been extremely hot as well as dense. Scientists were just beginning to understand that under great heat and density, chemical elements can be transformed from one into the other. Gamow and his colleagues calculated that for a hot, dense, and expanding universe about one-quarter of the simplest chemical element - hydrogen - would have been "cooked" into the element helium. Astronomers have measured the proportion of hydrogen and helium scattered through our universe, and it matches the prediction perfectly. This was strong evidence that the early universe was hot as well as dense.

--Universe Forum--Big Bang--What was it?

I guess we are done and you don't know what you're talking about other then theory.

Hydrogen and helium atoms were only able to form after electroweak symmetry broke!!!! Do i need to post that graphic again!?! The chemical elements hydrogen and helium were formed shortly after the big bang as the universe cooled, but they did not exist as atoms at the first moment of the big bang.

And wtf are you talking about water?

Water was certainly not present at the time of the big bang!

Water is a chemical and it's found on other planets isn't it ? Where did it come from ?

OK just so make this clear. Water did not exist at the time of the big bang. Water is hydrogen and oxygen, and neither of those atoms were able to form in the moments after the big bang. It would have been a highly energetic quark-gluon plasma, hadrons (like protons and neutrons) could not form. And therefore atoms could not form. Only once the universe cooled enough could quarks bind to form protons, and electrons orbit those protons to form atoms.

Where did they come from in the first place? Idk, maybe god.

We've talked about this before. Im open to the idea of god. Just not your retarded idea of him.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow....

Seriously?

"I suspect stars are the source of the MBR"

"reshifted starlight is not proof of the big bang"

"universe is too tightly wound up to be old"

"the universe blew up and the earth formed"

Omg are you serious?

Omg are you serious?

Omg are you serious?

Omg omg omg omg omg omg omg

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

To sum up, in his own words: "nothing blew up and then made a rock and then it rained and poof humans appeared. Isnt that darwinism in a nutshell"

No you fraud, no it is not.

I didn't think you believed in God

Actually, if you would pay attention ive said over and over that im very open to the concept of a god.

Just not your retarded concept.

Lets actually talk substance though.

The CMB comes from stars? Are you serious? Do you realize how easy it would be to prove that?

Do you realize the history of the CMB contradicts that? When it was discovered they looked for a source, there is no source. It comes from everywhere. If it was coming from stars we would simply point radio telescopes at stars and measure the CMB radiation they emit. They dont.

The problem

The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere5>—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000).6 However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB7 would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light8). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.


(1) Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.



(2) Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light.



The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?9 This is a light-travel–time problem.10

Light-Travel Time: A Problem for the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis

 

[Youwerecreated]

The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.

So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.


Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the “sound waves” interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.

“Ripples” of Galaxies—Another Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis

 

[sfcalifornia]

God did not have to go into complete detail did he ?

Macro-evolution is illogical.

Adaptations logical.

It is illogical to think that Eve could pump out enough kids to bring the world's population to what what it is today in 6,000 years. She would have had to be pregnant her entire life. Assuming she lived to be 900+ years old like Adam, with a 9 month gestation, she would only have had 1,200 kids, unless she dropped 50-100 kids at a time. Either that or she gave birth immediately after getting screwed by Adam.
How old were Adam and Eve when they were created?
Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old..... seems Adam and Eve wasted a bit of time between kids.... they had a world to populate!
Then you have to take menopause into account. Exactly how many fertile years did Eve have?
Oh and all the while, she was birthing Asians and Africans too?
When did she have time to raise the kids? The poor woman must have been pooped.

Compared to macro-evolution, the Adam and Eve story is completely implausible.

Seems to me Moses and the other contributors to the bible were using Adam and Eve as a metaphor for the entire human race and over time everyone started taking everything literally.

So you think it is illogical that the population of humans were only at 200 million just 2,000 years ago now it's at 8 billion ? so it it went from 8 people to 200 million in 3,000 years.

Explain by those numbers how it is illogical ?

You mean 7 billion:

World population hits 7 billion

If Eve birthed one kid every nine months, that's only 1200 kids for the first 900 years. But that's incorrect anyway. Adam was 130 before they had Seth. So it was even less kids.... And when did Eve go into menopause? Even less kids.

You're gonna need to show the math if you're ever going to convince any of us that 2 people were able to bring the population up to 7 billion in 6,000 years.

And you still didn't explain how Eve pumped out Asians, Africans and Latinos much less any of the other questions I posted. That's what creationists do... they just gloss over and ignore the bits they can't explain.....

 

[cbirch2]

I didn't think you believed in God

Actually, if you would pay attention ive said over and over that im very open to the concept of a god.

Just not your retarded concept.

Lets actually talk substance though.

The CMB comes from stars? Are you serious? Do you realize how easy it would be to prove that?

Do you realize the history of the CMB contradicts that? When it was discovered they looked for a source, there is no source. It comes from everywhere. If it was coming from stars we would simply point radio telescopes at stars and measure the CMB radiation they emit. They dont.

The problem

The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere5>—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000).6 However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB7 would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light8). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.


(1) Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.



(2) Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light.



The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?9 This is a light-travel–time problem.10

Light-Travel Time: A Problem for the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis

What? Photons dont have to travel across the universe for there to be a relatively constant temperature.

And its not totally uniform.

And is this going into an argument about inflation? Id love it.

There actually is evidence to support inflation. The idea behind the period of inflation is several fold. First the expansion of space itself would make particles farther apart without them actually having traveled that distance. Second the idea of unified forces. At the limits of our energy in labs, weve only been able to prove that the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism unify above something like 246 GeV; in other words, fermions begin to exchange photons instead of W or Z bosons above that energy. So its a safe assumption that the strong nuclear force behaves the same way.

So then you have a very high energy environment right after the big bang in which at least 3 of the 4 fundamental forces were unified and behaved in a different way.

 

[cbirch2]

The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.

So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.


Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the “sound waves” interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.

“Ripples” of Galaxies—Another Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis

Proto Galaxy - Astronomers discover a small proto galaxy 13.2 billion light-years away | TopNews United States

There is tremendous difficulting in getting stars to form on their own?

Seriously?

What do you expect giant clouds of gas to do in space? No forces act on a gas cloud but itself and gravity. Its going to collapse in on itself eventually, its a mathematical inevitability.

YaleNews | Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born

We do see stars being born fool. What is that? Oh its just a cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself and heating up in the process.

Nope thats not the definition of a star or anything.

 

[LOki]

The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science.

Nonsense.

For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis.

Events of creation as recorded in Genesis are a fairy tale.

Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.

Nonsense.

So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years.

Nonsense.

On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.

Nonsense.

Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the “sound waves” interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.

“Ripples” of Galaxies—Another Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis

Superstition inspired nonsense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.

So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.


Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the “sound waves” interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.

“Ripples” of Galaxies—Another Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis

Proto Galaxy - Astronomers discover a small proto galaxy 13.2 billion light-years away | TopNews United States

There is tremendous difficulting in getting stars to form on their own?

Seriously?

What do you expect giant clouds of gas to do in space? No forces act on a gas cloud but itself and gravity. Its going to collapse in on itself eventually, its a mathematical inevitability.

YaleNews | Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born

We do see stars being born fool. What is that? Oh its just a cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself and heating up in the process.

Nope thats not the definition of a star or anything.

Let's get to the important questions and leave the rhetoric alone.

There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions ,

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?



The dot spun rapidly until it exploded,then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?

Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this spinning dot would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.

This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum. This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.

So all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction. But two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html

How do you explain this ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.

So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.


Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the “sound waves” interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.

“Ripples” of Galaxies—Another Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis

Proto Galaxy - Astronomers discover a small proto galaxy 13.2 billion light-years away | TopNews United States

There is tremendous difficulting in getting stars to form on their own?

Seriously?

What do you expect giant clouds of gas to do in space? No forces act on a gas cloud but itself and gravity. Its going to collapse in on itself eventually, its a mathematical inevitability.

YaleNews | Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born

We do see stars being born fool. What is that? Oh its just a cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself and heating up in the process.

Nope thats not the definition of a star or anything.

Who are you calling fool you brainwashed little twit.



Star Formation and Creation


Can We See Stars Forming?

by Wayne R. Spencer on

November 19, 2008


Semi-technical



age-of-stars
astronomy
author-wayne-spencer
stellar-evolution


Keywords: stars, star formation, creation, infant stars, European Southern Observatory, Very Large Telescope Interferometer, VLTI, astronomy, creation scientists, disks, clouds, gas, dust

A recent article on the Internet was entitled “Infant Stars Caught in Act of Feeding.”1 New techniques are allowing astronomers to study disks of dust and gas around stars at very high levels of detail. The European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope Interferometer (or VLTI) in Chile is able to measure at an angle so small, it would be like looking at the period of a sentence at a distance of 50 Kilometers (31 Miles). An interferometer combines the data from two or more telescopes that are separated from each other in such a way that the multiple telescopes act like one much larger telescope. A recent study looked at six stars known as Herbig Ae/Be objects, believed to be young stars still growing in size from their formation. This study was directed at finding what is happening to the dust and gas surrounding these stars.

Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.


Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis

 

[Youwerecreated]

The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science.

Nonsense.

For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis.

Events of creation as recorded in Genesis are a fairy tale.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.

Nonsense.

Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the “sound waves” interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.

“Ripples” of Galaxies—Another Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis

Superstition inspired nonsense.

Oh boy