If stars were created, cosmology is wrong

[dad]

The examples are never-ending, here is a recent example of faith in action in cosmological claims.

""SN2016aps also contained another puzzle," added Dr Nicholl. "The gas we detected was mostly hydrogen -- but such a massive star would usually have lost all of its hydrogen via stellar winds long before it started pulsating. One explanation is that two slightly less massive stars of around, say 60 solar masses, had merged before the explosion. The lower mass stars hold onto their hydrogen for longer, while their combined mass is high enough to trigger the pair instability."
Scientists discover supernova that outshines all others

Besides the basics such as not being able to know sizes or distances to stars, (they base all distances on a belief time exists homogeneously in the universe) we see the principle of faith in action here. They did not predict or expect Hydrogen. So, there 'golly gee just must have' been two stars merging just before the event. Hahaha

 

[John53]

I agree... they were not created... and certainly not by any god.

 

[Nakosis]

The examples are never-ending, here is a recent example of faith in action in cosmological claims.

""SN2016aps also contained another puzzle," added Dr Nicholl. "The gas we detected was mostly hydrogen -- but such a massive star would usually have lost all of its hydrogen via stellar winds long before it started pulsating. One explanation is that two slightly less massive stars of around, say 60 solar masses, had merged before the explosion. The lower mass stars hold onto their hydrogen for longer, while their combined mass is high enough to trigger the pair instability."
Scientists discover supernova that outshines all others

Besides the basics such as not being able to know sizes or distances to stars, (they base all distances on a belief time exists homogeneously in the universe) we see the principle of faith in action here. They did not predict or expect Hydrogen. So, there 'golly gee just must have' been two stars merging just before the event. Hahaha

I think the postulation of a theory is different than faith. A theory has to be supportable by whatever evidence is available and is understood that it could be proven wrong if/when further evidence becomes available.

Faith requires no support from any evidence nor the acceptance that one's faith could be wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

The examples are never-ending, here is a recent example of faith in action in cosmological claims.

""SN2016aps also contained another puzzle," added Dr Nicholl. "The gas we detected was mostly hydrogen -- but such a massive star would usually have lost all of its hydrogen via stellar winds long before it started pulsating. One explanation is that two slightly less massive stars of around, say 60 solar masses, had merged before the explosion. The lower mass stars hold onto their hydrogen for longer, while their combined mass is high enough to trigger the pair instability."
Scientists discover supernova that outshines all others

Besides the basics such as not being able to know sizes or distances to stars, (they base all distances on a belief time exists homogeneously in the universe) we see the principle of faith in action here. They did not predict or expect Hydrogen. So, there 'golly gee just must have' been two stars merging just before the event. Hahaha

Where is the faith in that? One doctor gives a hypothesis based on his knowledge of cosmology.

FYI, several methods to measure a stars size
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectures/size/size.html

OH and distance is measured using paralax or colour spectrum

Who does not predict hydrogen? Hydrogen is the most abundant gas in the universe, always has been. It was the first gas to form when conditions cooled enough to atoms form. Every single star used hydrogen as it primary fuel source. Did not predict? What a silly and ignorant statement.

 

[Regiomontanus]

The examples are never-ending, here is a recent example of faith in action in cosmological claims.

""SN2016aps also contained another puzzle," added Dr Nicholl. "The gas we detected was mostly hydrogen -- but such a massive star would usually have lost all of its hydrogen via stellar winds long before it started pulsating. One explanation is that two slightly less massive stars of around, say 60 solar masses, had merged before the explosion. The lower mass stars hold onto their hydrogen for longer, while their combined mass is high enough to trigger the pair instability."
Scientists discover supernova that outshines all others

Besides the basics such as not being able to know sizes or distances to stars, (they base all distances on a belief time exists homogeneously in the universe) we see the principle of faith in action here. They did not predict or expect Hydrogen. So, there 'golly gee just must have' been two stars merging just before the event. Hahaha

"Besides the basics such as not being able to know sizes or distances to stars,..."

False

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think the postulation of a theory is different than faith. A theory has to be supportable by whatever evidence is available and is understood that it could be proven wrong if/when further evidence becomes available.

Faith requires no support from any evidence nor the acceptance that one's faith could be wrong.

Which is what makes it so strange to people like me.

 

[Agnostisch]

Over the past 20 years, there has been a deficiency in this model when it comes to the internal characteristics of galaxies near their center (I mean here in the range of thousands of light years of the center). There are several interrelated problems, and I focus here on what seems to be the heart of the dilemma: linking observed galaxies to the supposed dark matter halos helps to understand their origin and explain the presence of visible matter in their suburbs, but it turns out that the halos of cold dark matter have too much density in the central regions, in the sense that the halo of dark matter produces more physical density than is observed in the central regions of galaxies by studying the movement of stars and gas.

 

[dad]

I agree... they were not created... and certainly not by any god.

Were too.

 

[dad]

I think the postulation of a theory is different than faith. A theory has to be supportable by whatever evidence is available and is understood that it could be proven wrong if/when further evidence becomes available.

Faith requires no support from any evidence nor the acceptance that one's faith could be wrong.

So show me support for the magic stars needed to produce the event according to their own theories? Or should we take it by faith only? Ha

 

[dad]

Over the past 20 years, there has been a deficiency in this model when it comes to the internal characteristics of galaxies near their center (I mean here in the range of thousands of light years of the center). There are several interrelated problems, and I focus here on what seems to be the heart of the dilemma: linking observed galaxies to the supposed dark matter halos helps to understand their origin and explain the presence of visible matter in their suburbs, but it turns out that the halos of cold dark matter have too much density in the central regions, in the sense that the halo of dark matter produces more physical density than is observed in the central regions of galaxies by studying the movement of stars and gas.

More holes in their theories.

 

[dad]

"Besides the basics such as not being able to know sizes or distances to stars,..."

False

No, bang on. Try and show the distance to any star and see why.

 

[John53]

Were too.

Your OP proves they can't have been.

 

[dad]

Your OP proves they can't have been.

No, sorry you couldn't chew that meat. I would think that some wild claim that a few stars 'must-have' come together to make the event possible is lacking in evidence in a very big way!

What a joke.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Were too.

There are many good introductory books on astronomy, if you are truly interested in learning. One of them I coauthored though it is out of print.

I am curious - as a fellow follower of Christ - do you see some conflict between astronomy/physics and Christianity? Or is your rejection of science based on something else?

 

[McBell]

No, sorry you couldn't chew that meat. I would think that some wild claim that a few stars 'must-have' come together to make the event possible is lacking in evidence in a very big way!

What a joke.

[sarcasm]
yeah
because "GodDidIt" has so much more evidence....
[/sarcasm]

 

[John53]

No, sorry you couldn't chew that meat. I would think that some wild claim that a few stars 'must-have' come together to make the event possible is lacking in evidence in a very big way!

What a joke.

Exactly, and there's no bigger wild claim than a super being magically made them appear for no apparent reason.

 

[McBell]

Exactly, and there's no bigger wild claim than a super being magically made them appear for no apparent reason.

After you reach a few billion years old let us see how good YOUR memory is....

 

[dad]

Exactly, and there's no bigger wild claim than a super being magically made them appear for no apparent reason.

Your lack of understanding of the Almighty's creating process only makes it magic to you. Like a caveman might think a match was magic.
I notice when two stars need to have come together to make a flash of light fit into the cosmological models, and there is no evidence offered at all, you do not call that magic! Hypocritical.

 

[dad]

[sarcasm]
yeah
because "GodDidIt" has so much more evidence....
[/sarcasm]

So you do not explain how we know a magic union of stars happened. Nor do you care that no evidence exists. Instead, we see some hate attitude for God?!

 

[dad]

There are many good introductory books on astronomy, if you are truly interested in learning. One of them I coauthored though it is out of print.

There are many books on Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, divining, witchcraft, and camping life also. Too bad none of these explain why so-called science stories can be offered as 'science' with no evidence!

I am curious - as a fellow follower of Christ - do you see some conflict between astronomy/physics and Christianity? Or is your rejection of science based on something else?

Yes, if God created the earth and then the stars for us to mark time and etc here soon after, then there is a conflict with stellar evolution and the standard model.