Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation

Dr. Lisle is Awesome. I love his talks on astronomy. It is so funny that secularists will go to great lengths to make up stuff to fit their billions of years. Thanks for the post Rev.

 

God-fearing evangelical Christians on NOT secularists!

The Bible in the inspired word of God, but it must be taken into account that the Bible is not a college text book—and it was never intended to be one. It was given to us to serve a spiritual purpose, and not to contradict the fact that the earth is 4.54 billion years old. For an excellent article from a Christian perspective, please see the following:


http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

 

Jason Lisle’s article is dishonest, willfully deceptive smutty trash! He jumps from one unfounded conjecture to another and dishonestly refers to the 17,000 astronomers who disagree with him as “secular astronomers”—a willful, dishonest, and deceptive insult! His audiences are made up of poorly educated and ridiculously gullible people whom he knows will not even realize that astronomy is a secular rather than sacred discipline and that his insult makes no sense. Please pray that God will convict Jason of his dishonesty and his unwarranted insults while representing himself as a Christian.

 

You have to get tired of ICR and AIG making non-scientific assumptions. As far as star formation:

http://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-observe-the-birth-of-a-massive-star-in-the-milky-way/

As far as comparing a small amount of gas on Earth to a supernova, or making unscientific remarks about how gravity vs. pressure works in them:

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2013/07/aa21318-13/aa21318-13.html

Astrophysicists do mathematical simulations all the time on computers showing star formation using the known laws of gravity, mass, etc. This is absolutely nothing that hasn't been known for a long time and is no mystery.

 

They have mathematical stimulation of the universe expanding, even though there's no force to expand the universe. What's the known law of anti-gravity? They can mathematically stimulate anything they want, including flying pigs, without there being any truth to it.

Pointing out flaws and problems in theories of stellar evolution is not non-scientific assumptions.

 

No, you cannot simulate pigs flying if you use accurate data. We know very well the force of gravity and the mass of elements and their distance in "star nurseries". By applying the simple math, it can be shown that the total gravity is adequate to bring cause the matter to coalesce. When enough matter is brought in the pressure and temperature in the core will become so great that it starts to fuse. All of these properties are very well known.

Let me explain: The formula to understanding it would be using these variables "gravity", "Mass", "Distance" and on the other side of the equal sign would be "star". We know all of these variables and with the proper formula will result in the end effect or the "star".

Now on the pig, we do not have a resulting "flying pig" as the result without putting known erroneous data into the variables of "gravity", "Mass" or "lift". (Assuming the pig isn't equipped with a lifting mechanism).

As far as expansion of the universe, we have the result "expansion". It is observable. But, the known variables do not account for it so it is perfectly acceptable to add the "dark matter" and "dark energy" variables to account for the result. Unlike the pig, where we do not observe any flying pigs.

 

Simulations are done with assumptions. You can assume anything you want. If you just used "accurate date" there'd be no such thing as a computer simulation of the Big Bang or expansion of the universe because there's no force to expand the universe. We know very well the force of gravity and the mass of elements. You could simulate pigs flying using 50' wings, if you wished -- yeah, you'd have to ignore some problems, so.

Oh, now you believe in gravity?

No, we don't observe expansion of the universe. We observe red-shift which is assume to be caused by expansion. But, no, dark matter and dark energy are not perfectly acceptable to assume, not for anyone who denies being a religious zealot. Those aren't small things.

 

Apples and oranges. You have all the variables you need to determine star birth. You do not have all the variables to do a flying pig or the expansion of the universe unless you fudge them and add wings, etc. Anyway, the simulations that I was talking of are of star formation, for which we know what all of the variables are. Gravity, expansion rate, distance, mass, etc. etc. Stars WILL form if these conditions are right and they appear to be since we see VERY young stars in these star nurseries.

Uhhhhhhh, that question is a joke? Right? Your not one of these nutcase flat-earthers? Please, tell me no.

It is NOT an assumption. There is no other reason for the red shift because the star's spectrum is correct, but the entire spectrum is shifted which indicates speed. This is not the wave spreading and filtering like when you see a red sun at sunset. Distant stars get that too, but analysis of the spectrum itself shows which is which and the amount of both can be determined.

Like I said, it's not the expansion that is a surprise, but the rate of it. There has to be mass and energy that we do not see from our position on Earth. For that reason, it is called "dark mass" and "dark energy". Call it God if you want to, but if humans live long enough I can assure you that we will find it, just like we have found out everything else well meaning Christians tried to use "God" as the answer instead of trying to find out what he created to make his wonderful universe work.

 

It's an interesting point. I don't even think we have evidence of nebulas contracting in any real sustained sense. Seems for a star to be born, you have to have an outside designing force contracting the gasses together until gravity takes over.

 

That sounds more like faith than science.

 

At some point the kinetic energy that expands gas would be overcome by gravity. But, it seems to be a very real problem to explain how that point is reached.

Even a giant sun doesn't have enough mass to produce enough gravity to cause the star to have formed by gas collapse in the first place. The Wikipedia entry on gas collapse all but concedes this point. And, so there's theories about shock waves condensing the gas causing star formation, but this creates new problems, and s we go...