YEC and Star Formation

[A Beautiful Truth]

Since Young earth creationists believe that the sun and stars were created on day four, how do they explain observed star formation?

Has God set up a process and let it go much as He does with human reproduction or even the formation of raindrops?

I, an old earth creationist, believe star formation is a process that was built into the laws of physics since the beginning. In fact, when the days of Genesis start, the heavens and the earth were already created. Since the heavens were already there, the stars were already there. If the stars were already there, then day four is clearly referring to only the appearance of those stars from the *reference point* given which was the surface of the earth. Scientifically, day four refers to the dissapation of earth's thick cloud cover making the sun and moon and stars visible to that established viewpoint from earth's surface. More importantly, of course, day four explains it was God who was responsible for creating the sun, moon, and stars.

What if trignametric paralax could put the supposed observed star formation 1,600 years ago? Would that mean you are a witness to day four?

[CobraA1]

ok, took out my rather emotionally charged post . . .

[A Beautiful Truth]

My beliefs don't have to be peer-reviewed, thankyouverymuch. Don't even pretend to tell me how my beliefs work :hmph:. Yes, I've considered Humphereys' explanation. SO SUE ME. My beliefs rest in observation and logic, not a committee.

CobraA1,

I am real sorry if I offended you. I took out that part of my post. I know Humphreys has not accepted the review given him by others in his field so I am suspicious. I am suspicious of those who put out their work without allowing it to be falsified. Was it not you who was concerned about the peer review of the Neanderthal finding I cited? Is is not strange to you that Humphrey's work is not in a peer reviewed journal?

[CobraA1]

I know Humphreys has not accepted the review given him by others in his field so I am suspicious.


What review? By whom?


Is is not strange to you that Humphrey's work is not in a peer reviewed journal?


Reasons for not including it generally were because it was radically different from "mainstream" beliefs. Yes, Humpherys has had some articles published in peer-reviewed journals:

'Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams', (Multiple-author) International Atomic Energy Agency, 13th International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington D.C., 1–6 October 1990.

'Progress toward a superconducting opening switch', (Principal author), Proceedings of 6th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 29 – July 1, 1987) pp. 279–282.

'Rimfire: a six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA II', (Principal author), Proceedings of 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 10–12, 1985) pp. 262–2265.

'Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons', (Principal author) International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 34(1):261–268, 1983.

'The 1/gamma velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials', (Only author) Nuclear Physics, A182:580–592, 1972.

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

However, it was stuff that clearly supported creationism that didn't get published. He knows how to write articles that will pass peer review - I doubt the reason for them not accepting the articles is because the articles were bad.

[Socratism]

Although I have heard the claim made before that "star formation has been observed", all such claims when investigated in detail do not stand up. Perhaps it is like beauty and is only in the eye of the beholder.

There is a fundamental problem in star formation and that is "how does gas come together in the first place so as to create a mass large enough that gravitation attraction can complete the process?" This seems to be one of the unsolved mysteries of cosmology.

[A Beautiful Truth]

There is a fundamental problem in star formation and that is "how does gas come together in the first place so as to create a mass large enough that gravitation attraction can complete the process?" This seems to be one of the unsolved mysteries of cosmology.

Do YEC's not believe in exotic matter?

[A Beautiful Truth]

What review? By whom?

It was actually published in a YE creationist journal, except they never got around to publishing the response to Dr. Humphrey's response. I'll get back with you on the names, but one was a foremost expert on general relativity, if I remember right.

Reasons for not including it generally were because it was radically different from "mainstream" beliefs.

My point, exactly. He did not have to have his work philsophicaly critiqued, just his math and science. But maybe you are saying because scientists would reject his philosophy they would reject his math and science? I don't think most secular scientists are as "bad" as YEC's about that. I believe they would critique it on its scientific merits, not its philisophical merits.


Yes, Humpherys has had some articles published in peer-reviewed journals:

Now, that certainly was not my question. I made indirect reference to his buisness of "Starlight and Time" and what not. I am quite certain Dr. Humphreys is a fine scientist on other subjects as long as he does not try to fit science into his interpretation of the Bible.

[Socratism]

Do YEC's not believe in exotic matter?

What's "exotic matter"? Fairy dust?

[A Beautiful Truth]

What's "exotic matter"? Fairy dust?

I think that must mean that YEC's do not accept exotic matter into their interpretation?

It does not matter, really. I have learned by now that I can waste a lot of time discussing science with YEC's. It is not worth it to me when YEC's admit that they accept no evidence outside their Bible interpretation. To me, it shows fear--do you actually believe anything can be discovered and proven that disproves God? He is the author of both creation and the Bible, there is nothing to fear. YEC's have done much harm to the credibility of the Christian faith. The Natural Science forum is proof of that.

[Socratism]

I think that must mean that YEC's do not accept exotic matter into their interpretation?

Apparently you aren't going to answer my question regarding the nature of "exotic matter". I am familar with the terms "dark matter" and "dark energy", but whether this is what you mean by "exotic matter" I do not know.

It does not matter, really. I have learned by now that I can waste a lot of time discussing science with YEC's. It is not worth it to me when YEC's admit that they accept no evidence outside their Bible interpretation.

As a YEC I can state confidently that we do not exclude any real evidence, it is just that the "interpretations" of the evidence sometimes are too wild to be believed. I would say that dark matter and dark energy are two fine examples of far out ideas that will ultimately be discarded because they are like "ether", they just don't exist.

To me, it shows fear--do you actually believe anything can be discovered and proven that disproves God? He is the author of both creation and the Bible, there is nothing to fear.

I certainly agree with you there, but the people who seem to be afraid are the ones who think that current theories will last forever and so the Bible must be "reinterpreted" to fit current fashion.

YEC's have done much harm to the credibility of the Christian faith. The Natural Science forum is proof of that.

Forums are interesting but they do not determine what the truth of the matter is.

If standing up for the truth causes some to lose their faith so be it. Their faith could not have been very solid if hearing the truth causes them to lose it.

Our position is similar to Luthers: "Here I stand, I can do no other". In other words, if a person believes strongly in something it is cowardly as well as deceptive to pretend that one believes in something else, just because others do not agree and deride them and call them names.

I came to my beliefs having previously believed in evolution and long ages. I resent people telling me I am against science, because I am one of the greatest fans and boosters of true science. But I think I know a con job when I see one and the tragedy is that the people who promote evolution and long ages have been conned before them by others .... and the beat goes on.

[CobraA1]

Reasons for not including it generally were because it was radically different from "mainstream" beliefs.

My point, exactly. He did not have to have his work philsophicaly critiqued, just his math and science. But maybe you are saying because scientists would reject his philosophy they would reject his math and science? I don't think most secular scientists are as "bad" as YEC's about that. I believe they would critique it on its scientific merits, not its philisophical merits.


Hmm, I tried to find a series of letters between him and a journal I remember reading, but didn't find it - maybe it was from another scientist, Behe perhaps? Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I do seem to remember a journal turning a creationist down simply because they said they were only concerned with mainstream stuff - they didn't appear to look at the content of his article . . . if I remember right . . .

[A Beautiful Truth]

Not sure what you are talking about Cobra A1, so I don't know if it is much similar.

About the critique I was referring in my post, I have a link for you. This link documents the critique Humphrey's received and then Humphrey's response to the critique (but not the response of his response which did not get published but was written) which was originally published in a young earth creationists journal "Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal".

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

Samuel Conners and Don Page were the ones responding in "Starlight and Time is the Big Bang"

If I remember right, I think Don Page is quite an expert on matters of General Relativity, I am sorry Humphrey's refused to listen...

They were not critiquing the philosophy, but the science.

[CobraA1]

Not sure what you are talking about Cobra A1, so I don't know if it is much similar.


Just rambling out loud, I suppose - I'll be quiet now . . .

Thanks for the info.

[Socrates]

I think that must mean that YEC's do not accept exotic matter into their interpretation?

Scripture is silent so YECs are free to accept or reject it. But at the moment, by its very nature there is no real evidence for it. Its existence is inferred from big bang assumptions.

It does not matter, really. I have learned by now that I can waste a lot of time discussing science with YEC's.

Of course it is -- you would better use your time becoming qualified in science. :punch: Far better than supporting a ministry that resorts to mocking cartoons of great Christian scholars such as Ussher.

It is not worth it to me when YEC's admit that they accept no evidence outside their Bible interpretation.

Nope, no evidence that overturns the historical-grammatical approach to Scripture. We leave existentialist nonsense to the compromisers.

To me, it shows fear--do you actually believe anything can be discovered and proven that disproves God?

:shoot: To me, it shows the tendency of churchian compromisers to resort to cheap psychologisation of their opponents.

He is the author of both creation and the Bible, there is nothing to fear.

No, there isn't. God is indeed author of creation, but also the one who cursed creation because of Adam's sin. But man is the author of uniformitarian interpretations of creation. Therefore we should use the unfallen revelation of Scripture to build models to interpret the creation we know to be cursed.

YEC's have done much harm to the credibility of the Christian faith. The Natural Science forum is proof of that.

Lovely ipse dixit -- try to produce evidence instead of assertions. In fact, it's churchian compromisers like OECs and TEs who have caused shipwrecks of the faith by telling people that science rather than Scripture is the ultimate authority. But an uncompromising YEC view has restored the faith of many -- see Sonia’s Testimony. Creation magazine opened my eyes to the Gospel! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0418.asp) and A testimony: ‘Joel Galvin’: Faith shipwrecked by compromising ‘Christian’ colleges; restored by Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/joel_galvin_testimony.asp).

[dizzle]

I just noticed this thread. Charleen please keep your nonYEC rhetoric conducive to spirit of this area which is discussions between the brethren, and Soc please do not respond in kind.

[Socrates]

Since Young earth creationists believe that the sun and stars were created on day four, how do they explain observed star formation?

As the creationist Ph.D. astronomer Dr Ron Samec said www.answersingenesis.org/docs/438.asp

Q: The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has recently taken some spectacular pictures of stars forming. Doesn't this prove that stars were not created?

A: As a former planetarium director and a current professor of astronomy, I have shown slides of the 'eagle nebula' and other similar gas complexes such as the 'horse-head nebula' in Orion. These two regions are favourites since they show more than one type of nebula.

These regions are called dark, reflection, and emission nebulae.
Dark nebulae are made mostly of dust.
Emission nebulae are fluorescent regions of gas glowing in the presence of embedded stars.
Reflection nebulae are cold un-ionized gas. When dark nebulae collide with emission nebulae, features like those noted in the HST image result. The dust pushes its way through the hot gas. Gas along the front edge of the collision compresses and glows hotter. This results in the whitish appearing areas at the edges of the dark 'fingers' of dust.

I presume that the temperatures of these areas are near 10,000 K so that they glow like the surfaces of stars of similar temperature, that is, white. Gas at such temperatures will quickly disperse and there is no chance of it forming stars. We should not be convinced that embedded stars exist within the 'finger tips' of these dust regions unless they are actually imaged.

I strongly suspect that they are not there, and this is simply another example of the strong publicity emphasis surrounding the Hubble Space Telescope. Without such exciting 'new discoveries' coming regularly, the HST could fall under the knife of legislative budget cuts.

Has God set up a process and let it go much as He does with human reproduction or even the formation of raindrops?

I, an old earth creationist, believe star formation is a process that was built into the laws of physics since the beginning.

Believe what you want. The problem is getting gas clouds from the big bang to the critical Jeans Mass required for spontaneous collapse. This is given by:

MJ = 45Msol n-1/2T3/2

where n is the number of particles per cm3 and T is the Kelvin temperature. Unfortunately for big bang believers, at the time the Cosmic Background Radiation was supposedly generated 300ka after the beginning, T ~ 3,000 and n ~ 6,000, so MJ ~ 105 Msol, or the mass of a globular cluster.

So star formation theories must postulate ways of either cooling the cloud or increasing the density. As creationist Ph.D. astronomer Dr Danny Faulkner says http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/stars.asp

What about stars claimed to be forming today?

Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognised that the clouds don't spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can't account for the origin of stars in the first place. [See also Stars could not have come from the Big Bang (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1384.asp) [deals with the problem of cooling clouds enough -- :soc:]]

Stars are not very complex, and so-called 'stellar evolution' (though I don't necessarily accept all of it) is a different critter from biological evolution. So I don't have a problem with the idea that a cloud of gas, created initially by God in a special unstable condition, or compressed by a shock wave from a nearby exploding star, might collapse under its own gravity and start to heat up to form a new star.

In fact, when the days of Genesis start, the heavens and the earth were already created.

Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement. The Hebrews had no word for "universe" so they used "heavens and earth" to represent it. This is called a merism, combining two opposites to make a whole. In English we have "he searched high and low" i.e. everywhere not just the high and low places but not those of middle height; "open day and night" i.e. open the whole 24-hour cycle including twilight.

Since the heavens were already there, the stars were already there. If the stars were already there, then day four is clearly referring to only the appearance of those stars from the *reference point* given which was the surface of the earth. Scientifically, day four refers to the dissapation of earth's thick cloud cover making the sun and moon and stars visible to that established viewpoint from earth's surface. More importantly, of course, day four explains it was God who was responsible for creating the sun, moon, and stars.

Not so. The text says that the luminaries were MADE (asah) on Day for. There is a perfectly good word NOT appeared (ra'ah), which is actually used in Genesis 1:9:

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

What if trignametric [sic] paralax [sic] ...

I hope you understand it better than you can spell it :eek: Mind you, Ross didn't understand it very well at one time either -- see Hugh Ross lays down the gauntlet! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_gauntlet.asp)

... could put the supposed observed star formation 1,600 years ago? Would that mean you are a witness to day four?

Yawn, see Dr Humphreys' time dilation theories, and this time try to understand his devastating refutations of criticisms by Ross supporters.

[A Beautiful Truth]

We leave existentialist nonsense to the compromisers....
:shoot: To me, it shows the tendency of churchian compromisers to resort to cheap psychologisation of their opponents.

Why don't you just make a cartoon about it.

In fact, it's churchian compromisers like OECs and TEs...

Gee, Soc, I thought the whole "churchian" argument was settled...I guess not.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I hope you understand it better than you can spell it :eek:

Do you have a problem measuring with that method (which I admit I cannot spell) for a distance out to 1,600 light years?


Yawn, see Dr Humphreys' time dilation theories, and this time try to understand his devastating refutations of criticisms by Ross supporters.

The "devastating refutations" were not the end of the story. The refutations given to Humphreys refutations were what was devestating--maybe that is why there were NEVER PUBLISHED in the Young earth creationists journals or webpages...

[dizzle]

Socrates....

churchian compromisers like OECs and TEs... is inappropriate. You can take that to the Locker Room if you like but that is outside the spirit of the intent of this particular area of the forum and clearly insinuates that OEC and TE in a blanket sense are not Christians. We as a forum cannot encourage that. Like all judgment calls nothing is an in toto censure as I cannot anticipate every possible situation that may arise, but it is clearly inappropriate here. I did not notice that statement when I made my prior notice which is why I did not address it there. It should have been addressed at this time.

to continue on that note..... Charleen and Soc - if you two wish to start one thread here about which creationist paradigm is more edifying to faith etc, do so. We are not going to have multiple threads rabbit trail into this.

Furthermore, the Ussher cartoon is already the subject of a thread. Let's keep that there at least while it is still active. It is not relevant to the subject of this thread.

[Socratism]

Does anybody here know of any reliable source that explains in any kind of scientific terms how stars could form in the early universe or even how galaxies could form?

I have looked in vain in dozens of books by the top people in the field and it seems to me if one doesn't know anything about such basic and initial starting points in the universe then how can we rely on anything these high priests say about all the other comparatively minor things in this field?

[A Beautiful Truth]

high priests ?

High priest? You are not already biased against any information they may have, are you? Perhaps you are not really interested in what they say and that is why you cannot find anything useful for your research.


~Charleen

[Avatar_of_evil]

Ah - the old appeal to your own incredulity.

Let me guess, no training in physics/astronomy therefore it all seems so complex it cannot be true.

By the way, star formation and galaxy formation are two different things entirely.

This forum is for those who beleive in theistic creation only, this bars pantheistic views, panentheisitc views, and deistic views as well as atheistic.

[Socratism]

?

High priest? You are not already biased against any information they may have, are you? Perhaps you are not really interested in what they say and that is why you cannot find anything useful for your research.
~Charleen

I would rather think that I am skeptical of any theory that relies on excessive extrapolation into the past, yet can not get off the ground in its initial starting point: i.e. big bang or evolution from a primitive protocell.

The "high priest" comment was intended to be analogous to the attitude that Jesus had toward people who distort scripture (the truth) for their own advantage.

There are many scientists who are honest in their assessment of the state of scientific knowledge in their respective fields. John Maddox is one, Fred Hoyle another, John Maynard Smith another. But honest scientists like this are way outnumbered by the "high priests" or their wantabees.