If stars were created, cosmology is wrong

[ChristineM]

@dad

You gripe horrendously that i have not provided evidence (nonsense of course) and here in post 4 i provided evidence. Guess what, you completely ignored it an carried on with your in evidenced nonsence.

Expected of course.

 

[John53]

@dad

You gripe horrendously that i have not provided evidence (nonsense of course) and here in post 4 i provided evidence. Guess what, you completely ignored it an carried on with your in evidenced nonsence.

Expected of course.

It's a complete waste of time trying to have a rational discussion with him.

 

[ChristineM]

It's a complete waste of time trying to have a rational discussion with him.

I know but its fun and passes the time to see his overt cognitive dissonance during the lock down period.

 

[John53]

I know but its fun and passes the time to see his overt cognitive dissonance during the lock down period.

For sure. I've been wondering how much the post count has increased the last few weeks. I'd forgotten how entertaining these forums can be.

 

[PruePhillip]

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

You an Aussie?
I am not into a lot of this creationist stuff (though I see a good approximation of the
accurate sequence of events in the first Genesis 1 account)
But when we say no god made stars we need to qualify what we mean. A god or
gods could pull hydrogen into a gravitationally dense ball and cause nuclear
ignition. They could do this by huffing and puffing, or they could create the rules
to do it for them. Thus "God commanded the seas to bring forth life."

 

[John53]

You an Aussie?
I am not into a lot of this creationist stuff (though I see a good approximation of the
accurate sequence of events in the first Genesis 1 account)
But when we say no god made stars we need to qualify what we mean. A god or
gods could pull hydrogen into a gravitationally dense ball and cause nuclear
ignition. They could do this by huffing and puffing, or they could create the rules
to do it for them. Thus "God commanded the seas to bring forth life."

Yes I'm an Aussie.

A god or gods could but as I've seen no evidence for any god I doubt it but I'm happy to consider any evidence.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes I'm an Aussie.

A god or gods could but as I've seen no evidence for any god I doubt it but I'm happy to consider any evidence.

Funny joke. I told my mother "I read that the number of kookaburras has halved over the last
15 years."
My mother, who feeds them on our farm every day, replied, "That's nonsense. There's eight
out there right now."
I asked, "How many were there 15 years ago?"
My mother replies, "About 16."

 

[rational experiences]

Thus "God commanded the seas to bring forth life."

As we all are a self, everyone should say to self, if I was the only self living, seeing we are all only one human, but experiencing our one self by billions of diverse experiences...….as taught consciously.

What would you be doing?

The answer would be....not science.

That answer is the correct answer for ONE...the self.

Now if you said to self, human only conscious, where you are living. Which is inside of an Earth atmosphere. And you say the sea is salt water....as the term sea.

Then you said.....God talked and brought for life in the sea. Where would you place God, as that human talking?

Not with self, a human and a male.....you would think about God elsewhere.

Now I have told you a spirit story, which existed first. For creation never existed first. Spirit in eternal did...and it sung out O multiple God bodies...the eternal mass where those sounds formed thinned and then it all exploded.

We do not own our lives until after the Garden Nature. So you would say O was still active as O became spatial holding. What the eternal was still communicating to remove spirit form from. As concepts.

Now these are the orders of the concepts.

Eternal only with living eternal spirit who sung up God in one portion of its mass.

God got removed.

Space formed.

Eternal was still communicating for God O the release.

God changed/converted and then evolved in cooling, as more and more space opened as more and more energy got consumed. How a burning spatial change then cooled.

Gases filled back in about half of space as an atmosphere.

God was still being communicated to from the eternal.

Eternal as that God O status sent spirit from out of the eternal.

Why you said as a human looking at a history of how/why form was created in life on Earth, as from the status O God in the eternal. How it was expressed.

 

[John53]

Funny joke. I told my mother "I read that the number of kookaburras has halved over the last
15 years."
My mother, who feeds them on our farm every day, replied, "That's nonsense. There's eight
out there right now."
I asked, "How many were there 15 years ago?"
My mother replies, "About 16."

I'm a bit of a bird nerd, well a lot of a bird nerd. If it wasn't for this stupid virus I'd be out on mudflats photographing annd counting migratory shore birds before they leave for Siberia. Oh well, I'm better off then most.

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm a bit of a bird nerd, well a lot of a bird nerd. If it wasn't for this stupid virus I'd be out on mudflats photographing annd counting migratory shore birds before they leave for Siberia. Oh well, I'm better off then most.

I have a holiday home on the Murray River. I decided to put on a web site every bird that
lives in our area. I was quite shocked that my graphic work was getting out of control
with the huge number of birds.
As an aside, the most interesting bird in my area is the Eastern Strike Tit. Only seen one
about three or four times - they live up in the crown of the gum trees. Striking bird though.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes I'm an Aussie.

A god or gods could but as I've seen no evidence for any god I doubt it but I'm happy to consider any evidence.

It's not an issue for evidence (as you can construe what you consider "evidence") it's all down to
what you believe. A believer is on who choses to believe, and a disbeliever is one who choses
not to believe.
I have been chatting with people about Genesis and science in the bible, the history of Israel and its
many prophecies (including the one that the Jews would return to Israel one day) and they feel
confronted by that.

 

[dad]

The kind someone made up and you parrot back.

I did not make up the premises for models of the past and dating that science uses.

Your OP said they weren't... It's your post not mine

Relax. If any false science article contains blasphemy and misinformation and lies about origins, realize that this is what they are all about. When I lift out something from a study or science article, it is never ever meant to endorse the belief set they peddle as a whole.
In the case of the thread here, what was noted in the article was that they were engaged in leaps of blind faith to arrive at conclusions. (i.e. that there must have been a few stars merging to create a SN in this instance). Why is that claimed? Because they need it to be so to make it seem to fit in their belief set/religion.

 

[dad]

@dad

You gripe horrendously that i have not provided evidence (nonsense of course) and here in post 4 i provided evidence. Guess what, you completely ignored it an carried on with your in evidenced nonsence.

Expected of course.

I missed that post. Great so you tried to mount a defense of your beliefs.

So in that post you said this.

"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"

As your article states
"The parallax of Betelgeuse is 0.00764 arcsec."

What you do here is compare the space and time in our solar system area with that somewhere else in the universe. That cannot be done. We do not know that space or time itself is the same out there. So you cannot take a swath of time and space here (jupiter or earth orbit or etc) and make it equal to all space and time in the universe! Therefore all distances that depend on that belief are absolutely null and void.

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.

Don't misrepresent what was said. No one disputed hydrogen in general existing in the universe in any way shape or form.

The OP stated clearly that
"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"

So for the star they refer to in the article here, it was not predicted to contain much hydrogen.

 

[gnostic]

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?

No, dad just very childish and dishonest anti-science creationist, who doesn’t understand the concept of verifiable scientific evidence.

Dad doesn’t understand that in order to debunk modern astronomy, debunk geology, debunk paleontology, debunk etc etc etc, he is required to negative evidence to debunk them. But he doesn’t know how to go about acquiring these evidence against sciences, so he make up all sorts of irrational claims.

And in order to support the Genesis Creation and Genesis flood and the Genesis astronomy, he would not only require physical evidence of these events, but also physical evidence of his creator god being responsible for these creation. But once again, he doesn’t know how to acquire evidence to back his current topic, the creation of stars and Sun.

So what does dad do? He make up some new irrational BS claims.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, the joke is not on me at all. The only stars that matter here are the ones they claim came together to make this SN, or rather, golly gee just must have come together, because we need that to have happened for our belief set.

As for what you think are stars coming together (it may take millions of years to see that happen in your mind) well, forget about it. You don't even know what stars really are or how far any of them is or how big!



What would be happening is not what you think or why you think and does not involve the time you think, or etc.

Well that's good because some of the light from stars that reaches Earth are already millions of years old.

 

[sealchan]

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 may be wrong, but are you conflating/confusing a working assumption used in an effort to test theory and determine what would amount to supporting evidence with an idea that is, on authority-based faith, presumed true no matter what one's personal or collective experience is?

 

[dad]

No, dad just very childish and dishonest anti-science creationist, who doesn’t understand the concept of verifiable scientific evidence.

Dad doesn’t understand that in order to debunk modern astronomy, debunk geology, debunk paleontology, debunk etc etc etc, he is required to negative evidence to debunk them. But he doesn’t know how to go about acquiring these evidence against sciences, so he make up all sorts of irrational claims.

And in order to support the Genesis Creation and Genesis flood and the Genesis astronomy, he would not only require physical evidence of these events, but also physical evidence of his creator god being responsible for these creation. But once again, he doesn’t know how to acquire evidence to back his current topic, the creation of stars and Sun.

So what does dad do? He make up some new irrational BS claims.

No one needs to debunk faith claims. Those making science claims need to demostrate that they have more. You can't.

 

[dad]

Well that's good because some of the light from stars that reaches Earth are already millions of years old.

Good news, no light that reaches here can be shown to be more than a few days old. (even that is a stretch).

The furthest distance man has sent probes is less than one little light day away from here. Beyond this, we do not know that time is the same, or space and time. So we cannot say anything took amounts of our time to do anything out there!

 

[dad]

I may be wrong, but are you conflating/confusing a working assumption used in an effort to test theory and determine what would amount to supporting evidence with an idea that is, on authority-based faith, presumed true no matter what one's personal or collective experience is?

I use creation as a working assumption. You use invisible stars for which there is no evidence and no one has ever seen. You just need them to have existed and done what you need to be done. Whatever.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes.

Yes. Right here on this little blue dot that has so much meaning, and that will be here when the stars go out.

The ideas that science has of what this universe really is are not correct. Its origin and fate are very different. It's actual purposes and distances and time and space are misconceived by science.

So you believe that Jesus created the universe(s) with hundreds of billions of gigantic galaxies, each one with hundreds of billions of stars so that in one of these galaxies our star, the Sun, could heat this pathetic little planet so that he would one day walk beside the Jordan?

That is such a sweet idea! Unfortunately the rest of the nonsense of extremist Christianity does take the taste away, somewhat.

Good Luck with it.