[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that the online version of Larson's book does cite the Hoyle and Gold paper as the source for the passage PW quoted. Presumably, wherever PW found the quote dropped the attribution because if he were aware of the actual source, it's far more likely he would have cited Hoyle than some obscure author.

True. I stand corrected, and you're right, it was not my intent to plagiarize anyone. Copy and pasting sometimes leads to unintended consequences and errors.

Now, where were we...? Lucy's knee?

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Now, where were we...? Lucy's knee?

No, you previously stated that, "I reiterate, all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves".

We're still waiting for you to provide any of this wealth of all available research.

Unless, of course, you're admitting that you're unable to provide scientific evidence that stars cannot form and you'd like to move on.

-ArtificialGrape

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by steveksux

Absolutely. If gases clumped together due to gravity, Earth would have an atmosphere. Which it clearly does not...

Randy

Gravity alone won't do it, but lets run with your foolish misunderstanding and reason.

Tell me where the star(s) is(are) that formed on or in the Earth's atmosphere and I'll throw my Bible away. The closet thing even remotely resembling a star is roughly 93 million miles away from the Earth. You see, I believe gravity alone will not produce a star, we have plenty of gravity here and the best you can say that has been produced is an atmosphere around our planet, which ALREADY EXISTED.

How do you get a sun, or star to form, from individual hydrogen atoms mind you, inside of the vacuum of outer space. To believe such a thing takes more faith than Creationists utilize.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf8634

Ouch!

That's gotta hurt, PW!

Absurd statements like the one he made only hurts the collective intelligence of the internet.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

It's pushing 24 hours, does "right back" mean something different to you?

-ArtificialGrape

No, I had come back, but no response at that time, so I moved on.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

De nada. No really, it's like high school science stuff. I think that rat guy on Beakman's world even did a demonstration once on the 3 types of heat distribution.

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

... Only radiant heat (infrared radiation) can travel through a vacuum. ...

This is precisely my point, as I have had this debate several times before.

There is no mechanism for the first star ever (I am speaking of the numero uno ORIGINAL star) to form given the tenets and posits of the Big Bang and or the Oscillating Universe theories. The first star has been created solely by faith from minds/hearts of the evos.

Yet, as stellar evolution prescribes, new stars form due to matter created from existing stars, by reverse engineering the big bang, you ultimately come to a point of the first ever star forming, and this is a completely impossible event based on empirical scientific study/understanding.

So knowing, if you cannot get a first star, then there are no subsequent stars. Period. ETA: Everything beyond the origin, be it from evos or Christians, is always going to come from their respective presuppositions of the origin, which these are based on faith and faith alone.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Wait. Are you suggesting that gas atoms don't have enough mass to be attracted to each other?

By proxy I guardedly say yes, but with a caveat. BTW- It wasn't my idea, but empirical science backs up the assertion I am making. See, it is not so much about the mass as it is the mechanism(s) to facilitate star formation.

Some on this thread insist the only mechanism required is gravity. Though ignorance is high amongst some, gravity alone is not the reason a star could form out of hydrogen atoms in outer space, but honestly, the problem is not SOLELY about lack of mass per se.

So knowing, some fantastic theories have arisen to explain how stars are formed by "something" plus gravity. If you believe differently, please explain how you think atoms/molecules of hydrogen would join together sufficiently so as to produce a star.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

How do you get a sun, or star to form, from individual hydrogen atoms mind you, inside of the vacuum of outer space. To believe such a thing takes more faith than Creationists utilize.

What you believe is irrelevant. The math shows that a hydrogen/helium gas cloud in space can and will form a star through gravity alone given the right conditions. Conditions which were bound to occur (and have occured) billions of times in the vastness of the cosmos. No god required, just gravity and time. We've even watch it happening through the Hubble Space Obsevatory. I believe you were in provided pictures which you scoffed at. I'm certain you will scoff at this response too as you have already pre-determined that no evidence, no matter how compelling, will be accpeted by you.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Geko45

What you believe is irrelevant. ...

I admit when empirical science is lacking for a position that I take I have to utilize faith to believe in something occurring, which you and others on here obviously will not admit the same.

Originally Posted by Geko45

... The math shows that a hydrogen/helium gas cloud in space can and will form a star through gravity alone given the right conditions. Conditions which were bound to occur (and have occured) billions of times in the vastness of the cosmos. No god required, just gravity and time. ...

Useless theoretical equations aside, please explain or identify these "right conditions" you speak of.

Originally Posted by Geko45

... We've even watch it happening through the Hubble Space Obsevatory. I believe you were in provided pictures which you scoffed at. I'm certain you will scoff at this response too as you have already pre-determined that no evidence, no matter how compelling, will be accpeted by you.

IIRC, the theme was to use science to prove star formation, instead of science, some photos were posted with the proclamation, "A star is born" or something along those lines.

Photos of space do NOT prove a star just formed. Maybe light finally reached the telescope. Remember the Hubble Deep Field photograph? Those stars had existed all along, yet we never once saw them until that particular photograph was captured.

[ArtificialGrape]

misclick...

[ArtificialGrape]

Peace Warrior,

You have asserted:

current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway

I reiterate, all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves

For 17 months now we've been waiting for you to back up these assertions with research that concludes that stars cannot form. Will you be providing the research, or abandoning your assertions?

Thanks!

-ArtificialGrape

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

No, you previously stated that, "I reiterate, all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves".

We're still waiting for you to provide any of this wealth of all available research.

Unless, of course, you're admitting that you're unable to provide scientific evidence that stars cannot form and you'd like to move on.

-ArtificialGrape

clutching straws?

Okay, let me re-reiterate:

All the BELIEVABLE research, based on empirical scientific data, I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

Peace Warrior,

You have asserted:

current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway

I reiterate, all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves

For 17 months now we've been waiting for you to back up these assertions with research that concludes that stars cannot form. Will you be providing the research, or abandoning your assertions?

Thanks!

-ArtificialGrape

You keep quoting from another thread... hilarious

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

You keep quoting from another thread... hilarious

They are your words, are they not? Do you stand by them, or do you abandon them?

The only thing possibly hilarious is my expecting you to provide something now that you have been asked to provide since summer 2011. Actually it's more sad than hilarious.

Anyway, you continue to make the same assertion in this thread...
All the BELIEVABLE research, based on empirical scientific data, I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves.

Given all this believable research, why are you so reluctant to provide any? Is it perhaps because your previous attempts at supporting it by citing Boyle's Law, D.B. Larson and Martin Harwit were all readily shot down for not supporting your conclusion.

Given that you consider Boyle's Law and gases not collapsing on earth to support your argument that gases cannot collapse in space, you'll have to understand if I question your ability to determine what is BELIEVABLE. Is there any chance that you can share these scientific papers that draw the conclusion that stars cannot form -- it sounds like they're everywhere.

thanks,
-ArtificialGrape

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

No, you previously stated that, "I reiterate, all available research I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves".

We're still waiting for you to provide any of this wealth of all available research.

Unless, of course, you're admitting that you're unable to provide scientific evidence that stars cannot form and you'd like to move on.

-ArtificialGrape

To be fair, the Lucy's knee stuff predates the star formation stuff. On the other hand, PW seems eminently capable of avoiding answering two questions at the same time.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

No, I had come back, but no response at that time, so I moved on.

And yet there were already two posts from me at the time you said you'd be "right back" that have yet to be addressed. Why didn't you do so when you "had come back"?

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

To be fair, the Lucy's knee stuff predates the star formation stuff. On the other hand, PW seems eminently capable of avoiding answering two questions at the same time.

To be honest and fair, you brought up lucy's knee in this thread.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

To be honest and fair, you brought up lucy's knee in this thread.

Yes, I did and yet you've still neither explained what it has to do with anything nor have you produced the supposed "BELIEVABLE research, based on empirical scientific data," which "indicates that stars cannot form by themselves."

As I said, you seem fully capable of avoiding both questions at the same time.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

You're a physicist and you need references? Hey, I know of no mechanism in outer space that can clump gases together so as to produce a star. hey, this very well may be so because I am simply ignorant of the mechanism. I studied topic for a long time, and I haven't found anything but highly improbable theories, as opposed to actual Science, to reveal a mechanism for star formation.


Can you show me an observable instance of gasses clumping together? (NOTE: Please do not post yet more photos of nebulae as everyone knows that they are expanding and NOT condensing/contracting.)

Here's one.


I'm referring to the shiny round thing in the image. The buildings in the foreground are not made of gasses clumping together.

It is possible to see it from Earth with the naked eye. But you have to look in the daytime.

Randy

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Gravity alone won't do it, but lets run with your foolish misunderstanding and reason.

Well, Einstein, if gravity won't make gasses clump together , why does Earth still have an atmosphere made up of gasses clumped around it? What's your theory for what is holding down the air? Does God have the Earth wrapped in saran wrap?

Tell me where the star(s) is(are) that formed on or in the Earth's atmosphere and I'll throw my Bible away. The closet thing even remotely resembling a star is roughly 93 million miles away from the Earth.

So now you're claiming the sun is NOT a star, only something close to resembling a star? You realize stars are made of hydrogen, and Earth's atmosphere has hardly any hydrogen? Even if the entire atmosphere were composed of hydrogen, it wouldn't even be close to being enough to form a star. Are you really that ignorant or is this a parody?

How do you get a sun, or star to form, from individual hydrogen atoms mind you, inside of the vacuum of outer space. To believe such a thing takes more faith than Creationists utilize.

Either you don't understand what hydrogen is, or you don't understand what a vacuum is.

Vacuum implies the lack of hydrogen atoms, as well as other gases. If you can't even tell that a simple sentence you wrote contradicts itself, there's not much hope you'll see the flaws in the theories you try to construct out of thin air (again, that also would NOT be a vacuum) with even more complicated sentences.

Randy

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

The BS comes from the evos as no one has been able to observe it happening, and it is a hard luck (my terminology) theory from the evos as it was postulated so as to explain something that Science cannot prove. You can believe it if you want to, but physical science laws strike it down as impossible

I think you should be aware that "evos" refer to biology, not cosmology, since you seem to have them confused with cosmologists. Perhaps you call them Cosmos?

The Nebular Hypothesis (from the 1700's IIRC) has been repeatedly challenged and shown to be impossible due to actual scientific observations in the 20th century. The theory itself has had to evolve.

“Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.” D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984) page 8

If that were true, why don't black holes fly apart as fast as your crazy arguments do? Why doesn't all the loose dirt on Earth fly out into space and expand along with the atmosphere? Hell, as fast as Earth is spinning, it ought to be flinging excess stuff off into space from centrifugal force as well as the kinetic energy of an expanding universe. How do some galaxies collide if they're all moving away from each other? Why are planets moving around the sun instead of moving away from it???

Something seems to have overcome the expansion of the universe in some spots... if only we had a theory to explain this seeming impossibility. If only some force existed that exhibited a natural attraction between things with mass. Maybe someday science will solve that mystery.

I wonder what Isaac Newton would have called this mysterious force had he discovered GRAVITY?

Randy

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

And yet there were already two posts from me at the time you said you'd be "right back" that have yet to be addressed. Why didn't you do so when you "had come back"?

Perhaps he meant "Right back" in terms of cosmological time frames, (i.e. "right back" compared to 6000 years... )

Randy

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

You keep quoting from another thread... hilarious

The quotes and claims you keep neglecting to support from that other thread...

It is hilarious Unfortunately you do not seem to grasp the source of the humor.

Randy

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

clutching straws?

Okay, let me re-reiterate:

All the BELIEVABLE research, based on empirical scientific data, I could find indicates that stars cannot form by themselves.

1) What specific qualities or characteristics qualify research as "BELIEVABLE"?

2) What prevents you actually providing an example of this "BELIEVABLE research" supporting your position "stars cannot form by themselves" that you've repeatedly claim to have found?

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by steveksux

Why... How... what...

Think, think, think.