What exactly does evolution have to do with the formation of a star?
Answer: Nothing.
Does a star evolve from something else? You must have the answer if you discard it so easy? So it just goes puff and the star was there? Kinda like the puff of the big bang huh? Wonder what caused that?
How old does science think our planet is?
How long is the life cycle of a star?
Science now believe's our universe to be expanding. Then it will retract back to the finite point it started from. All will be gone, but can you honestly say it won't be triggered and happen again?
You have a lot of explaining to do if you still say "nothing". I'd like some empirical evidence you keep talking about?
A star like a human being has a life cycle. Like science ponders now, time and space have a beginning and an end.
If we humans evolve explain why they donot, they are born, they live and they die? Seems the rules that science applys to us also applys to them, Hmmm?
Your first sentence completely discredits everything you say afterwards.
What exactly does evolution have to do with the formation of a star?
Answer: Nothing. However I will humor you (and myself).
"Key elements of star formation are only available by observing in wavelengths other than the optical. The structure of the molecular cloud and the effects of the protostar can be observed in near-IR extinction maps (where the number of stars are counted per unit area and compared to a nearby zero extinction area of sky), continuum dust emission and rotational transitions of CO and other molecules; these last two are observed in the millimeter and submillimeter range. The radiation from the protostar and early star has to be observed in infrared astronomy wavelengths, as the extinction caused by the rest of the cloud in which the star is forming is usually too big to allow us to observe it in the visual part of the spectrum. This presents considerable difficulties as the atmosphere is almost entirely opaque from 20μm to 850μm, with narrow windows at 200μm and 450μm. Even outside this range atmospheric subtraction techniques must be used.
The formation of individual stars can only be directly observed in our Galaxy, but in distant galaxies star formation has been detected through its unique spectral signature."
Here are the "Notable Pathfinder Objects"
* MWC 349 was first discovered in 1978, and is estimated to be only 1,000 years old. Since the object is located at a distance of 10,000 lightyears, it actually is now 11,000 years old.
* VLA 1623 -- The first exemplar Class 0 protostar, a type of embedded protostar that has yet to accrete the majority of its mass. Found in 1993, is possibly younger than 10,000 years.
* L1014 -- An incredibly faint embedded object representative of a new class of sources that are only now being detected with the newest telescopes. Their status is still undetermined, they could be the youngest low-mass Class 0 protostars yet seen or even very low-mass evolved objects (like a brown dwarf or even an interstellar planet).
* IRS 8* -- The youngest known main sequence star, discovered in August 2006. It is estimated to be 3.5 million years old.
Source: Star formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As you yourself love to say, something cannot come from nothing. If there's not enough material around for a star to form, it isn't going to form. It needs a source of mass. A nebula is a great example. You expect this to go in a straight line. It doesn't. That's your first mistake.
Incorrect. Your second mistake. The Orion nebula is the very definition of what you are looking for.
"Astronomers have directly observed protoplanetary disks, brown dwarfs, intense and turbulent motions of the gas, and the photo-ionizing effects of massive nearby stars in the nebula."
So... we're observing the formation of planets, too!
"The Orion Nebula is an example of a stellar nursery where new stars are being born. Observations of the nebula have revealed approximately 700 stars in various stages of formation within the nebula.
Recent observations with the Hubble Space Telescope have yielded the major discovery of protoplanetary disks within the Orion Nebula, which have been dubbed proplyds. HST has revealed more than 150 of these within the nebula, and they are considered to be systems in the earliest stages of solar system formation. The sheer numbers of them have been used as evidence that the formation of solar systems is fairly common in our universe.
Stars form when clumps of hydrogen and other gases in an H II region contract under their own gravity. As the gas collapses, the central clump grows stronger and the gas heats to extreme temperatures by converting gravitational potential energy to thermal energy. If the temperature gets high enough, nuclear fusion will ignite and form a protostar. The protostar is 'born' when it begins to emit enough radiative energy to balance out its gravity and halt gravitational collapse.
Typically, a cloud of material remains a substantial distance from the star before the fusion reaction ignites. This remnant cloud is the protostar's protoplanetary disk, where planets may form. Recent infrared observations show that dust grains in these protoplanetary disks are growing, beginning on the path towards forming planetesimals."
There you have it.
Moving on. The whole "hot, expanding" claim.
Do you know what a Class O star is?
O's are huge. We're talking solar system size huge. They're stars that burn VERY hot, VERY fast. They expel so much energy that not only will planets not form around it, but planets won't form around the stars next to them.
They nova after a short period of time, having gone through their fuel like nobody's business.
"Observers have long noted a distinctive greenish tint to the nebula, in addition to regions of red and areas of blue-violet. The red hue is well-understood to be caused by Hα recombination line radiation at a wavelength of 656.3 nm. The blue-violet coloration is the reflected radiation from the massive O-class stars at the core of the nebula."
That explains why the nebula is hot and expanding. That by no means says that stars cannot form there. Even more so, the matter inside the nebula is forced to be a bit more dense in areas, further encouraging star formation.
"Once formed, the stars within the nebula emit a stream of charged particles known as a stellar wind. Massive stars and young stars have much stronger stellar winds than the Sun. The wind forms shock waves when it encounters the gas in the nebula, which then shapes the gas clouds. The shock waves from stellar wind also play a large part in stellar formation by compacting the gas clouds, creating density inhomogeneities that lead to gravitational collapse of the cloud."
Source: Orion Nebula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Take a look. There's all the evidence you need.
You need to research a lot more before asking questions and trying to selectively remove arguments that you cannot refute.
Here's some math for you.
Take the number of stars in the universe. I'll make it easy... just draw an 8 sideways. At this point we don't even need to know the planet count (we do know there are planets around other stars). Put a one above that.
That's the chances that this ONE planet around this ONE star, in a universe filled with a near infinite number of stars (the number is mind wrenching), was chosen as the place where it all goes down.
Why this one tiny planet?
Why this one star?
Why the need to "create" a universe this infinitely huge for one planet's worth of people?
Answer me that one.
Where is the stat that is born, has it been named? Speculating that it will form is not empirical evidence. All those words and not a bit of "evidence" only speculation of what will happen or we "believe" will happen. As I said, show me just "one" star, or present a valid observable subject that has been witnessed in nature to confirm this theory as having "validity". If you have proven where a star comes from, you will most likely get the noble prize for doing so, as you are the "first" and all you had to do is paste the thoughts of others to do so.
And a star being born must be considered for the theory of evolution to hold water in its materialistic declarations that everything has come about naturally. As I said PROVE IT. Proof is more than just an "idea", it is reproducible and observable evidence. Please point out the "Star" that has been observed being born, after all according to the materialistic theory of the origins of life it must be produced naturally, show me the money, as I have my own ideas, I want proof. RD
Newly Seen Force May Help Gravity In Star Formation
Thereya go.
Stars take millions of years to form. We've been observing them for what... only a few thousand? The process itself is not instantaneous, either.
All this demand for proof and none of your own. Where's YOUR proof? Show me the money! You've got this grand idea of where it all came from, so where's the proof? I wanna see it!
No proof? Speculation. Heresay.
You are demanding what you yourself cannot produce. Until you can produce proof of this "Creator", you have nothing.
I have yet to see you produce this.
Please explain how 100 billion galaxies with several hundred billion stars in each, which according to evolutionist has existed for 13.7 billion years has produced 1 star for every 37 seconds of its life has not had at least one "observed" star being born as theorized by the materialistic community?
The math is simple take 100billion galaxies and multiply it by 100 billion stars and divide that by 13.7 billion(the supposed life of the universe) and the product that is produced would be on average 1 star born every 37 seconds of which the universe has been in existence. All we want is just 1 example of a star being born, please provide it, it happens every 37 seconds according to this "valid" theory of evolution by materialistic methodology. Yet, it funny, not one has been observed from all the universe that is "observable" to man which is 4% of its entirety which containes 100 billion Galaxies. Where is the observable evidence that you boast of? RD
Another theory that is considered "valid" empirical evidence is this. The age of the Sun. It is theorized to be 4.7 billion years old, we now exist at the half way point of its existence. Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The average mean temperature of the earth as it exists is 14 degrees C(about 59 degree F). We are half way through the life cycle of our Sun, about 4.5 billion years alone its path of existence. Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Sun is theorized Half Way through it life cycle and thus is in an ever existing state of expansion, therefor it must have been somewhat smaller 4 billion years ago with the average mean temperature of the earth being below freezing. Its funny, but was not life itself supposed to have came into existence about the same time in which the earths average temp would be FROZEN? Organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Would someone please explain how Life Evolved in a temperature that is suggested to be below freezing by one theory and in a state of tropic temperature with another theory. Both of the these theories are being taught as empirical science. Why? RD
What does the process of star formation have to do with biological evolution?
Absolutely nothing. You are trying to mix two separate concepts in order to disprove both of them. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
No, a star does not go "puff" and appear. That's you guy's theory. Things just appearing out of nowhere all ready to go.
Would the Bible like to tell me what was going on before the Planck? I don't think it can. Where'd God come from? What was he doing before he created the universe?
Does God himself just go "puff" and create himself?
Four billion years old, give or take less than one percent.
Depends on the star. OUR star? Roughly 10 billion years.
No. Nobody can. You're asking for information before the beginning of what we know as time. We cannot go farther back than a certain time.
If I say "nothing" to what? Ask and you shall receive.
Stars do in fact have a life cycle. Many things have a life cycle. However it is quite a bit different from a human's life cycle.
Wow. Just... wow.
I'm not sure if this question stems from a lack of a grade school science eduction, or the tendency of creationists to take everything literally.
Say it with me: Stars are not alive. They don't smile at us, or whistle as they float through the air. Stars do not reproduce, stars do not pass down information.
Stars are formed, they burn their fuel and then they either explode or collapse, depending on which force within the star takes over.
What does the process of star formation have to do with biological evolution?
Absolutely nothing. You are trying to mix two separate concepts in order to disprove both of them.
No, a star does not go "puff" and appear. That's you guy's theory.
Would the Bible like to tell me what was going on before the Planck?
I don't think it can.
Where'd God come from?
What was he doing before he created the universe?
Does God himself just go "puff" and create himself?
No. Nobody can. You're asking for information before the beginning of what we know as time. We cannot go farther back than a certain time.
Say it with me: Stars are not alive.
They don't smile at us, or whistle as they float through the air. Stars do not reproduce, stars do not pass down information.
You tell me, you just asked it, If you claim i said it, please quote me?
I didn't, you did as i quoted you. So i guess you answered your own question.
Really, prove it's my theory?
Would you like to tell me? Are you a scientist?
Well, we will see if you can then?
Using science i think you would first have to prove he exists before you can ask where he comes from.
You don't think very scientific.
Why don't you ask him? Oh wait you don't believe in him do you? You normally ask questions of someone you have no faith in, and still expect an answer? Don't you think that is delusional?
What do you think caused the big bang? As an atheist i expect you to be in denial. Would you be fool enough to discard the possibility of it being a higher being? If it's not a God, i'd like to hear your honest opinion on what you think it might be?
So what do you think the probability is, even a guess? It's happened once that we know of, that's why we are here. Eventually every thing will stop accelerating and start contracting to its original finite point. Every thing we know in time and space will be gone. My question is do you think it's likely that this event will happen again?
Are you saying our sun is dead and lifeless, cause science says it is alive? You don't have to be a scientist to see that do you?I never said any of that. I said a star is alive, the dictionary says they are alive, science says they are alive. Why do you not? And try and use science to explain it since you seem to be so keen on it.
Absolutely!
"If we humans evolve explain why they donot, they are born, they live and they die? Seems the rules that science applys to us also applys to them, Hmmm?"
So what are you implying, besides bad grammar?
I answered YOUR question. You're a friggin riot.
YOU asked questions like "well if we evolve, why don't stars?". This one question shows a sheer lack of knowledge on both fields, cosmolgy and evolutionary biology.
Unless you want to explain why you tried to compare humans to stellar bodies using evolution?
You have no knowledge of science.
Would I like to tell you what happened before the Planck? Sure. I'd love to know what happened then. Trick is, nobody will ever know. Technology cannot measure back that far. Any farther back and the numbers go beyond infinite.
Scientist or not, there's no way to tell what happened before that point in time.
For acting all big and bad, you sure know very little in what you try to debate.
See, showing your beliefs through staunch defense. "Well let's see if you can do better, mister science guy!"
First, you apparently don't know what the Planck is. That's obvious. I merely ask this question just to see how a creationist reacts. Of course they don't know that I am asking the same question as "Well, where'd the first matter come from?!", just using proper scientific terms.
THAT is not my job. Science says God does not exist. Why would we try to prove the existence of such a being?
No, that's your job. One creationists have yet to do.
This, coming from someone not knowing basic scientific knowledge? HAH! You try to use stars to question evolution. If you had even BASIC knowledge of the fields, you'd never be asking those questions.
Sheesh!
You believe in Magic Man, not me. I ask the person that says "My views are perfect and right!" this question.
That, being YOU.
So. Answer this question. Or are you unable to?
Can you show me evidence of this higher being? Can you show me tangible evidence of his existence? How do YOU know he exists?
As a creationist, I expect you plug your ears and scream.
You're fool enough to believe in a being you cannot even show the slightest piece of evidence to support. You've got a Bible and that's it. Care to use it to prove the existence of God?
Put your Bible where your mouth is and show evidence of a creator. Real, physical, tangible, observable evidence.
Who really knows. Could be, could not. To know if there's a pattern to it, we need that crucial pre-Planck info. Can't give you information before that point.
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Seriously now, you believe that a star is alive in the same way we are?
You're trying to spin your own words to get out of a hole you dug yourself into.
A star is not a living, breathing, being. It does not reproduce, it does not pass down any of its information to other stars. Stars don't compete against other stars to win over a mate. It's "evolution" is its aging process. Again, is this because creationists take everything literally?
I can tell the difference between, say, a dog being alive... and a star being alive. Two different things.
You aren't that daft, are you? Please tell me you aren't.
So what are you implying, besides bad grammar?
Unless you want to explain why you tried to compare humans to stellar bodies using evolution?
I answered YOUR question. You're a friggin riot.
YOU asked questions like "well if we evolve, why don't stars?".
This one question shows a sheer lack of knowledge on both fields, cosmolgy and evolutionary biology.
Unless you want to explain why you tried to compare humans to stellar bodies using evolution?
You have no knowledge of science.
Would I like to tell you what happened before the Planck? Sure. I'd love to know what happened then. Trick is, nobody will ever know. Technology cannot measure back that far. Any farther back and the numbers go beyond infinite.
Scientist or not, there's no way to tell what happened before that point in time.
For acting all big and bad, you sure know very little in what you try to debate.
First, you apparently don't know what the Planck is. That's obvious. I merely ask this question just to see how a creationist reacts. Of course they don't know that I am asking the same question as "Well, where'd the first matter come from?!", just using proper scientific terms.
THAT is not my job.
Science says God does not exist.
Why would we try to prove the existence of such a being?
This, coming from someone not knowing basic scientific knowledge? HAH! You try to use stars to question evolution. If you had even BASIC knowledge of the fields, you'd never be asking those questions.
Sheesh!
You believe in Magic Man, not me. I ask the person that says "My views are perfect and right!" this question.
That, being YOU.
So. Answer this question. Or are you unable to?
Quote:
What do you think caused the big bang? As an atheist i expect you to be in denial. Would you be fool enough to discard the possibility of it being a higher being? If it's not a God, i'd like to hear your honest opinion on what you think it might be?
Can you show me evidence of this higher being?
Can you show me evidence of this higher being? Can you show me tangible evidence of his existence? How do YOU know he exists?
You're fool enough to believe in a being you cannot even show the slightest piece of evidence to support. You've got a Bible and that's it. Care to use it to prove the existence of God?
Who really knows. Could be, could not. To know if there's a pattern to it, we need that crucial pre-Planck info. Can't give you information before that point.
Seriously now, you believe that a star is alive in the same way we are?
You're trying to spin your own words to get out of a hole you dug yourself into.
In your quote, i say nothing of biological evolution. Why do you imply otherwise? I didn't imply "nothing". How did you take it?I did not say evolution, i said evolve. And the comparison to life as a cycle is the same. Birth, life, death. Only an atheist couldn't make the corellation.
And your answer was?
Was it fact or opinion?
Not tried, i did compare them. You speak of knowledge, please enlighten us?
Good comeback for somebody well versed in the art of science right? You should try using it to prove your points.
So what makes you the expert on something you can't prove?And yet you still believe in it? What faith!
Being as you couldn't answer my question the "trick"s on you.So mister science guy, where does the first matter come from?
You asked where he came from, i ask you prove he exists?
Why would you ask him questions when you don't believe?
You first. But i do understand if you don't have an answer.
Big bang. Was it a caused event or an uncaused/cause? Keeping in mind things in motion tend to stay in motion. And objects in action cause an equal and opposing reaction. I don't know if Newton is ready to role in his grave but go for it?
Substitute darwinism for higher being?
Don't need it. Caused or unCaused/cause?
Pre-Planck info, that's the stuff you no nothing about right? But your whole argument is based on?
No, but evidently you think i did, got quote?
The hole you dug is your own.
Nice trick. You also asked why this "evolution" did not apply to stars the way it does to man. Stars, you said, are born, they live, and die. You then ask, after making this comparison between a star and a human, why stars don't evolve. "Seems the rules that science applys to us also applys to them, Hmmm?" you asked, putting forth that question.
Stars do not biologically evolve.
Their "evolution" is the changes they undertake from their formation to their nova/collapse. These changes happen to the star directly.
Humans (brought in by your comparison), biologically evolve.
Stars do not biologically evolve. Their "evolution" is the changes they undertake from their formation to their nova/collapse. These changes happen to the star directly.
Humans (brought in by your comparison), biologically evolve. Evolutionary changes in man happen by reproduction and passing down of genes. A man isn't going to sprout new limbs when he wakes up one day... human biological evolution happens by the passing down of information, not directly to the human itself.
A star is a mass of incandescent gas. Nothing about that star is introduced to new stars formed from the nova and ejection of gas by destruction.
Therefore, your usage of a comparison of "evolution" between humans and stars is incorrect.
The terms "born" and "die" when referencing a star are not scientific. Formation and destruction are the appropriate terms.
You use the word "evolution" very loosely in the beginning, then tighten back up when I cock an eyebrow.
Still a neat little trick.
The above statements are fact.
See above statements. Research these statements. Go for it.
I pretty much did.
When a scientist says something, he submits his ideas for peer review.
Theories are built upon by evidence. Not the other way around. We collect enough data, information, observational info, enough solid evidence that we can give you a real good idea of what's going on.
Pre. Planck. Info.
We don't claim to know where the first matter comes from.
Some very small, (M theory) theories make an attempt... however these are, at the moment, completely untestable. I, personally, take M with a grain of salt. Neat concept, but...... you don't have enough evidence just yet.
"Would you be fool enough to discard the possibility of it being a higher being? If it's not a God, i'd like to hear your honest opinion on what you think it might be?"
If it's not science, I'd like to hear your honest opinion on it.
I ask those who believe in him.
And your knowledge is?
Science education. I know a decent amount of it. More than most. I'm no professor, but I could give a decent lesson or two.
What caused the Big Bang?
A superheated and dense mass underwent a phase change, causing a rapid expansion of what we know as the universe.
Exactly what was going on is still up for grabs. What we have is mathematical evidence showing that a Big Bang is consistent with all known scientific boundaries.
Still waiting for an answer? Your statement that they are not alive is wrong.
Never said they did, biologically.
So they do evolve?
We evolve, you admit stars evolve. All that's left is the word biological which you imply i said but provide no quote?
So what does science say about them being alive?
They look like opinion to me.
I'll research nothing, you made the claim, prove it!
Pretty much only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades, try again. Science use the term "pretty much" often? Kinda like you've done here right, LOL.
Either that or you not a scientist?
What's this "we" ****?
So why did you bring it up? Why ask us then you don't know?
You don't have enough evidence, you can't test it so why even call it a theory?
Concept is the right word, emphasis on the word con, LOL.
Why are you afraid to answer my question?
I don't care if you use science. That is why i asked for your opinion.
I'm sure science would have no problem giving a probablitlity what is your problem, faith maybe?
If the example of your lesson is this thread, LOL.
What do you think triggered it? For such expansion what (in your opinion)was the force that causedthis motion that we observe?
Gotta go to work, you'd better hit the books.
Are they lifeforms?
So where's the link between a star's "evolution" and a human's?
Stars do not "evolve" in the same sense that humans do. Two totally different concepts.Quote:You say it's not alive but yet you can't prove it's dead?By the above definition of "Life", a star is not a living thing.
They age. Evolution in this case deals with it's changes as it expends fuel. Do stars fit in the theory of evolution? Absolutely not.
And no attempts to refute what I said.
Show me a scientific paper saying "pretty much".
So unbelievably demanding. If you'll look up once again, you'll see that "pretty much" is now "did".
Never said I was a scientist. Man of science, yes. Scientist by profession, no.
Quote:
What's this "we" ****?
People of science. That includes scientists, hobbyist, anyone who takes a field of science seriously.
Let's start at the beginning.
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
That one line means that, if you want your beliefs to stand up against science, you need to show evidence of not only a higher being, but one that existed before any scientific method can show.
According to this, God must have existed before the universe. Any evidence of this?
Because it is a theory that attempts to unify other theories and concepts. It has evidence from all other theories to stand on. Putting it together is what is still being worked on, hence it being a theory.
Creation is a concept. There's no evidence, so it cannot be called a theory.
Faith is not science. The probability of a supreme being ranks right at zero in the world of science.
Again, if you have evidence to support a supreme being, be my guest.
The energy released from a massive phase transition is what caused it.
IF you have scientific evidence that a supreme being exists
