Watching planets form ...

[oxmixmudd]

I saw this over at UniverseToday.

TW-Hydrae-protoplanetary-close-in.jpg

Looks like not only can we watch stars form, we can watch planets form. This image is taken by the ALMA submillimeter array in Chile and shows gaps in a protoplanetary disk around a young star. These are exactly the kinds of gaps which form when a planetary object is 'cleaning up its neighborhood' by accreting new material (e.g. growing larger). The inset shows the inner region about the size of the Earth's orbit - IOW, there are likely planets in there too.

There have been debates in the past on this site with certain YEC's over whether stars form naturally, whether the planets we are finding are 'really' planets, all sorts of silliness. Some of the resistance to these ideas come from a rather silly assumption that God's 7th day rest in Genesis implies God is done making things in the heavens.

So here's another nail in the coffin of the idea "God's 7th day rest in Genesis implies God is done with creation". Planets are forming too - right before our eyes.

And a really cool observation in the relatively new and rapidly expanding set of observational science surround star and planetary system formation.


Jim

[Sparko]

well I dont think God has stopped creating either, but you are talking about looking at something 175 light years away. Maybe he stopped 100 years ago.

[One Bad Pig]

I saw this over at UniverseToday.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14579[/ATTACH]

Looks like not only can we watch stars form, we can watch planets form.

I would say we can see evidence of planets forming. "Watching" is a bit of a stretch considering the timescale involved.

This image is taken by the ALMA submillimeter array in Chile and shows gaps in a protoplanetary disk around a young star. These are exactly the kinds of gaps which form when a planetary object is 'cleaning up its neighborhood' by accreting new material (e.g. growing larger). The inset shows the inner region about the size of the Earth's orbit - IOW, there are likely planets in there too.

There have been debates in the past on this site with certain YEC's over whether stars form naturally, whether the planets we are finding are 'really' planets, all sorts of silliness. Some of the resistance to these ideas come from a rather silly assumption that God's 7th day rest in Genesis implies God is done making things in the heavens.

So here's another nail in the coffin of the idea "God's 7th day rest in Genesis implies God is done with creation". Planets are forming too - right before our eyes.

I wouldn't call this "creation." The idea sounds rather deist, IMO.

And a really cool observation in the relatively new and rapidly expanding set of observational science surround star and planetary system formation.


Jim

Definitely cool.

[oxmixmudd]

I would say we can see evidence of planets forming. "Watching" is a bit of a stretch considering the timescale involved.

Well - I didn't say we'd be able to see the finished product, just that we can 'watch' it unfold. With all processes that take more than a few human lifetimes, we can watch multiple instances in different stages of the process. It's just that these processes are hard to capture because of the resolutions required and the factg often we seem them at an oblique angle. This particular 'snapshot' just happens to be directly above the disk and at the ideal place where the majority of the accretion disk is still intact, but the areas where planets are forming are sufficiently clear we can 'see' the process in play.

I wouldn't call this "creation." The idea sounds rather deist, IMO.

I disagree. Deism is the idea God wound the universe up and let it go and rarely if ever has much to do with it. That is very different from the idea God actively is involved with the creation, even though it proceeds forward in a way that we can describe by means of natural law/physics/mathematics etc. If the universe is 13 billion years old, then all the stars we see, though described as created by God in Genesis 1, also can be said to have formed 'naturally'. But that doesn't mean God is inactive in creation a la the Deistic approach. So I don't see describing what we see here in terms of God creating is a misnomer. Any more than for me to regard myself as a being created in God's image, in spite of the fact we know the physical process and timeframe for that same creation.

Definitely cool.

Jim

[Jorge]

I saw this over at UniverseToday.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14579[/ATTACH]

Looks like not only can we watch stars form, we can watch planets form. This image is taken by the ALMA submillimeter array in Chile and shows gaps in a protoplanetary disk around a young star. These are exactly the kinds of gaps which form when a planetary object is 'cleaning up its neighborhood' by accreting new material (e.g. growing larger). The inset shows the inner region about the size of the Earth's orbit - IOW, there are likely planets in there too.

There have been debates in the past on this site with certain YEC's over whether stars form naturally, whether the planets we are finding are 'really' planets, all sorts of silliness. Some of the resistance to these ideas come from a rather silly assumption that God's 7th day rest in Genesis implies God is done making things in the heavens.

So here's another nail in the coffin of the idea "God's 7th day rest in Genesis implies God is done with creation". Planets are forming too - right before our eyes.

And a really cool observation in the relatively new and rapidly expanding set of observational science surround star and planetary system formation.

Jim

It is an undeniable fact that people often see what they WANT to see.
No better proof of that fact are Theistic Evolutionists.
Throw in Progressive Creationists, Atheists and Humanists while you're at it.

"Planets are forming"? ... "Stars are forming"? You can actually "see" that? Really???

Hey, who am I to try to pop this guy's fantasies? I'm no Bad Santa.

Carry on, O-Mudd ... carry on. See how many you can catch in your snares.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

It is an undeniable fact that people often see what they WANT to see.
No better proof of that fact are Theistic Evolutionists.
Throw in Progressive Creationists, Atheists and Humanists while you're at it.

"Planets are forming"? ... "Stars are forming"? You can actually "see" that? Really???

Hey, who am I to try to pop this guy's fantasies? I'm no Bad Santa.

Carry on, O-Mudd ... carry on. See how many you can catch in your snares.

Jorge

Yes- Really. Case in point - Saturn's rings. What creates the gaps in them? The presence of moons both within and outside the ring system.

These gaps are direct evidence for planets which are clearing their orbits of debris - and in the process growing (forming).

This disk is itself the leftover from the star's original formation from a disk of gas and dust - that we can see in earlier stages in the Orion Nebula for one.


As for 'catching in snares', if my words show that to follow Christ does not mean the rejection of thousands of plain and simple facts about the world in which we live, then I have in all likelihood saved many from the snare you and Ken Ham have created by defining the truth of the scripture as dependent upon the falsity of these same known and simple facts (e.g. that the universe is 13+ billion years old, the Earth is in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years in age, and life has a history of over 500 million years on that same Earth)


Jim

[One Bad Pig]

I disagree. Deism is the idea God wound the universe up and let it go and rarely if ever has much to do with it. That is very different from the idea God actively is involved with the creation, even though it proceeds forward in a way that we can describe by means of natural law/physics/mathematics etc. If the universe is 13 billion years old, then all the stars we see, though described as created by God in Genesis 1, also can be said to have formed 'naturally'. But that doesn't mean God is inactive in creation a la the Deistic approach. So I don't see describing what we see here in terms of God creating is a misnomer. Any more than for me to regard myself as a being created in God's image, in spite of the fact we know the physical process and timeframe for that same creation.

What I mean by "creation" is "creatio ex nihilo." I should have specified that. That's not going on, at least in most models. I'm not sure how TE/OEC deals with creatio ex nihilo.

[oxmixmudd]

What I mean by "creation" is "creatio ex nihilo." I should have specified that. That's not going on, at least in most models. I'm not sure how TE/OEC deals with creatio ex nihilo.

I'm not an expert on that element, and I can't guarantee the comments that follow are necessarily 'orthodox' on that subject. But I don't think OEC/TE necessarily defines a position one way or the other. The "Big Bang" itself is often regarded as essentially "creation ex nihilo". But it gets fuzzy in terms of 'what do you mean by "nothing"', as one can see just on concurrent thread on ZPE and the definition of 'what is a vacuum'. The Bible says life was formed from the Earth (man from the dust of the Earth) and so on, so Biblically, creation ex nihilo refers to something before the 'Spirit of God was hovering over the waters', something before when God place the stars in the heavens, or brought forth the dry land from the waters. by those events, 'something' had already been produced from 'nothing'.

So I guess I'm not exactly sure how that connects with my original comments about God continuing to create as regards stars and planets, why one would regard the current process as necessarily (Biblically) distinct from how God created what we see in the heavens at night? Do you see it necessary that the stars we see in the sky at night where produced by a process different from what is producing stars today?

Jim

[Carrikature]

What I mean by "creation" is "creatio ex nihilo." I should have specified that. That's not going on, at least in most models. I'm not sure how TE/OEC deals with creatio ex nihilo.

I've usually seen it handled as God creating a giant Rube Goldberg machine and pressing play. He's allowed to modify the pieces as He sees fit, but the basic setup was all established as part of the ex nihilo bit. The Big Bang would be pressing play. "Let their be light", as it were.

[oxmixmudd]

I've usually seen it handled as God creating a giant Rube Goldberg machine and pressing play. He's allowed to modify the pieces as He sees fit, but the basic setup was all established as part of the ex nihilo bit. The Big Bang would be pressing play. "Let their be light", as it were.

I think that is a tad cynical if you are referring to the OEC/TE take on things. It describes Deism well. I personally know very few Christians that would profess faith in the physical Resurrection that would limit God's involvement in the world past present or future in such an austere way - regardless of their take on the mechanism or timeframe of creation. I personally describe myself as TE/CE but find no reason to doubt that God works and has worked directly in the lives of people all over the world. And that there are in fact miracles of God in the world: past, present, and future.

Jim

[Carrikature]

I think that is a tad cynical if you are referring to the OEC/TE take on things. It describes Deism well. I personally know very few Christians that would profess faith in the physical Resurrection that would limit God's involvement in the world past present or future in such an austere way - regardless of their take on the mechanism or timeframe of creation. I personally describe myself as TE/CE but find no reason to doubt that God works and has worked directly in the lives of people all over the world. And that there are in fact miracles of God in the world: past, present, and future.

Jim

It describes deism only if you stipulate that God doesn't or can't act after pressing play. I certainly don't think any OEC/TE believes he doesn't, and I haven't said that he can't.

[Sparko]

It describes deism only if you stipulate that God doesn't or can't act after pressing play. I certainly don't think any OEC/TE believes he doesn't, and I haven't said that he can't.

I understood what you meant. That God did the creating at the big bang and the rest is just rearranging existing matter and energy. Which doesn't mean that God can't still do that today. The bible does call the making of the earth, and men and all that creating. It could be talking about God just creating in regards to the earth and his initial plan and then resting. Not the entire universe. He could still be creating other planets, stars, etc and still not be violating the "rest" spoken of in the bible.

[oxmixmudd]

It describes deism only if you stipulate that God doesn't or can't act after pressing play. I certainly don't think any OEC/TE believes he doesn't, and I haven't said that he can't.

Ok - thanks for the clarification - and no offense I hope.

Jim

[Carrikature]

Ok - thanks for the clarification - and no offense I hope.

Jim

Definitely no offense taken. I was trying to speak generally, and I think it back-fired a little.

[Kbertsche]

I've usually seen it handled as God creating a giant Rube Goldberg machine and pressing play. He's allowed to modify the pieces as He sees fit, but the basic setup was all established as part of the ex nihilo bit. The Big Bang would be pressing play. "Let their be light", as it were.

This perspective is neither evangelical nor biblical. As Jim said, this is a deistic perspective.

Biblically, there is no "machine" and no "play" button. Rather, the universe is continually held together by God. It cannot exist for a nanosecond unless He actively upholds it. This is how my evangelical OEC and TE friends view it.