Watching planets form ...

[Jorge]

I have read your posts. You dodge clear answers like the plague. Just like you just did above.

What are your "due qualifications"? Are you saying you do accept that scientists have found ESPs or not? That is a yes or no answer.

And what IS your position on forming stars and galaxies where we have photographic evidence of various stages?

Assume I have not read your position in the past and that I am not able to look it up.



You know Jorge, we actually agree on a lot of theology. My main problem with you is your out of bounds egotistical narcissism and arrogance, refusal to ever admit you are wrong, and the sarcastic mocking you toss out as some sort of weak defense mechanism instead of actually engaging others in debate on the points. Your posts are not in the least bit Christ like.

Maybe the other people you talk to lack critical thinking skills but don't make the mistake of including me in that group. For example, above you wrote:

"What are your "due qualifications"? Are you saying you do accept that scientists have found ESPs or not? That is a yes or no answer."

No it is not (for me), it must be qualified - here's why: Did the scientists actually find ESPs or are they interpreting what they are observing as an ESP?

It's as if I showed you a picture of a UFO and told you that it is a UFO. I may be very sincere but are you going to take my claim as a fact or as a personal interpretation or opinion? If you have any sense then it will be the latter UNLESS you have grounds for accepting that it is indeed a UFO.

Well, that's how it is for me regarding ESPs and my vote says, "Sorry, no sale today."

Jorge

[Jorge]

Yes - I've read enough of the referenced 'article' to catch that. And I will have to say it is simply appalling that a person claiming to be a representative of truth, honest, the highest moral caliber that IS what any Christian is supposed to aspire to can say:

Source: Hartnett

Attempts to explain how stars form naturalistically have encountered significant challenges because the known laws of physics indicate it is virtually impossible

© Copyright Original Source

When in reality what they mean is: Attempts to explain how the very first generation of stars form ...

The two statements are not even close to the same, and they hail from the shifty-eyed used car salesman parking lot. This kind of thing is all about hiding one's own reservations about what has been published behind grandiose statements and footnotes they hope their general audience will never read or understand - if that much!!! Jorge does a very similar thing with his 'asteroid impacts are really steam explosions' paper. Buried at the end of the text (after he's made the argument without so much as one indication he has any misgivings about is plausibility) is this little disclaimer:

Source: Jorge

I emphasize that this is nothing more than a hypothesis and in no way am I claiming that it is necessarily the final answer to these impact craters questions. If the breaking of the fountains of the great deep involved maars-like explosions (only much more energetic) then that could explain the geologic features of what today are interpreted as 'impact craters'.

© Copyright Original Source

When in reality it is quite well known that no underground steam explosion could ever explain any one of the major impact craters! They just can't produce the heat or pressures required to create the key artifacts which MUST be found in a crater or underground depression to even begin considering the possibility it has extra-terrestrial origin. And in many cases these impact craters are not associated with any evidence of volcanic activity. That in fact was one of the key elements associated with the early investigations of Meteor Crater in Arizona - no one could figure out how it formed because there was NOTHING anywhere near it that could have produced such a crater.

But that is for another thread. Here I'm just saying: How can people supposedly preaching the truth in Christ with any semblance of a clear conscience operate in such a 'used-car salesman' mode when peddling the YEC 'science'.

To be fair, I remember as a YEC peddling the party line even though I had my doubts. It is what is expected, and the consequences of voicing those doubts publically amidst the YEC crowd (as I learned later) is all by damning. But it was those same misgivings that forced me to look more closely. But these fellows know what they are doing and have had plenty of time to come to grips with the fact they know these things don't stand up. (I've personally called Jorge out on this paper several times).

Those of you that are YEC and read this stuff and that are not yet absorbed by the 'system', think about it. I'm not asking you to change from YEC - but for pity sake at least be honest with yourselves and others about what can and can't be supported scientifically. Nothing wrong with "I know it doesn't add up scientifically, but this is what I believe to be true".

Jim

You get no free Reading Comprehension lessons from me, O-Mudd.

Truth be told, I think you understand fine - you just intentionally distort/misrepresent. I don't feel bad about that, not at all. If you would distort God's Holy Word (as you do!) in order to shoe-horn Evolution into the picture, then distorting my writings is duck soup for you.

Jorge

[Roy]

Yes - I've read enough of the referenced 'article' to catch that. And I will have to say it is simply appalling that a person claiming to be a representative of truth, honest, the highest moral caliber that IS what any Christian is supposed to aspire to can say:

Source: Hartnett

Attempts to explain how stars form naturalistically have encountered significant challenges because the known laws of physics indicate it is virtually impossible

© Copyright Original Source

When in reality what they mean is: Attempts to explain how the very first generation of stars form ...

The two statements are not even close to the same, and they hail from the shifty-eyed used car salesman parking lot.

Agreed. Just another zero on the YEC "science" scale.

[Roy]

Truth be told, I think you understand fine - you just intentionally distort/misrepresent.

Since the welcher didn't actually include any details, evidence, examples or explanations as to what the distortion or misrepresentation is, the logical conclusion is that he hasn't got any and is just bluffing and blustering to sooth his ego and cover up his incompetence and malfeasance.

[Carrikature]

Sorry if I offended you. The concept that God "holds everything together" is part of the orthodox biblical doctrine of "divine providence". This doctrine is not based on only one verse, but it pervades Scripture. This fundamental doctrine is especially important and meaningful for those of us Christians who are involved in the sciences.

I'm not offended. I do find it extremely frustrating to continually encounter Christians that say much the same you did: that one hasn't read the Bible [completely, properly, at all] if one isn't aware of[listed verses]. Clearly, if one had, one would agree with whatever stance is being defended.

I'm familiar with the concept of divine providence, and the claim that God "holds everything together". It's not news to me. That said, every Christian has a set of verses they find particularly important. There are thousands to choose from, though, and all sorts of ways they can (and are) strung together. It's not a failing by anyone else for not knowing the particular string you favor.

[oxmixmudd]

You get no free Reading Comprehension lessons from me, O-Mudd.

Truth be told, I think you understand fine - you just intentionally distort/misrepresent. I don't feel bad about that, not at all. If you would distort God's Holy Word (as you do!) in order to shoe-horn Evolution into the picture, then distorting my writings is duck soup for you.

Jorge

My observation would be that whenever I get at a core goof-up of yours, you start claiming I'm 'distorting' what you said. That really can't work for this, since I'm simply quoting your published work.

Likewise Hartnett.

I'm going to be discussing the Chesepeake bay impact this weekend Jorge. I'll be curious to see if you can find a way to explain what I'll present as the consequences of a volcanically derived steam explosion.

Jim

[TheLurch]

"Explode"??? Are you bait-n-switching me? It was stars/planets FORMING, not exploding.
Besides, it is far, far easier to get things to explode than it is to get them to form.

No, i'm simply pointing out that having models fail is a normal part of the process of improving models. As you yourself admit immediately following.

Okay, so tell me when was the last time anyone conducted tests on a star or planet? What actual, experimental, verifiable, repeatable data was used to tweak the model? Are you NOW getting the point? Without the process I described, it must be filled in with assumptions, NOT ALL of which are based on hard science.

The models are verified against observations of disks surrounding young stars.

But I assume that you're going to tell me that the idea that the star is young is an assumption, rather than based on a variety of evidence. And we'd be at an impasse there. Because the evidence for the process of star formation is even better than it is for planet formation, given that we've known of the main sequence for a long time, and have extensive observations of stars of various ages.

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to what you ask here - it's case-by-case. Show me an actual model and I'll give you an actual answer for that model.

I shared one earlier in the thread, but for convenience's sake:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.01498

Again, i'm not asking for anything but details about what aspects of the model are physically implausible. This does not include approximations, which, as you know, are invariably used to allow things to be computed in a reasonable time.

[Jorge]

My observation would be that whenever I get at a core goof-up of yours, you start claiming I'm 'distorting' what you said. That really can't work for this, since I'm simply quoting your published work.

Likewise Hartnett.

I'm going to be discussing the Chesepeake bay impact this weekend Jorge. I'll be curious to see if you can find a way to explain what I'll present as the consequences of a volcanically derived steam explosion.

Jim

If prison sentences were handed out here at TWeb for distorting/misrepresenting the position of others, you (as well as a few of your ideological comrades) would be wearing orange jumpsuits.

To wit: your post above suggests/implies a distorted-misrepresented version of what I wrote. And it's not as if this is the first time that I've corrected you on this point. But, just like Roy, you simply ignore my corrections and proceed like the proverbial bull in a china shop. I thank God Almighty that I won't be in your shoes at The Judgement! Or in Roy's shoes ... or in R. Dawkins' shoes ... or in K. Miller's shoes ... or in ...

Jorge

[Jorge]

No, i'm simply pointing out that having models fail is a normal part of the process of improving models. As you yourself admit immediately following.

OF COURSE I "admit" it - it's true! Been there ... done that.

The models are verified against observations of disks surrounding young stars.

You DO understand the serious flaws in such thinking, right?

But I assume that you're going to tell me that the idea that the star is young is an assumption, rather than based on a variety of evidence. And we'd be at an impasse there. Because the evidence for the process of star formation is even better than it is for planet formation, given that we've known of the main sequence for a long time, and have extensive observations of stars of various ages.

See - you DO have an idea, you just don't follow it through far enough.

I shared one earlier in the thread, but for convenience's sake:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.01498

Again, i'm not asking for anything but details about what aspects of the model are physically implausible. This does not include approximations, which, as you know, are invariably used to allow things to be computed in a reasonable time.

My previous post at you answered what you again ask here. Briefly, the many model parameters that must be set have no experimental, verifiable, repeatable, observable basis. Likewise for the actual process involved. All of these things must be wholly assumed. And those assumptions are more-often-than-not ideological, not based on hard science.

Thus, accepting their output is far more based on ideology than it is on science.
There is simply no way around this fact. Yet most people refuse to acknowledge this.
Why? Because it wouldn't support their religious paradigm / set of beliefs.

Jorge

[Sparko]

The only problem with that is that IF Humphrey's explanation is right, then stars and planets DO form naturally.

Which points at another sidebar: YEC, since it can't follow the real evidence where it really leads, must invent solutions to problems. And the problem with that is that no human on Earth is smart enough to keep those solutions self-consistent. The only way to come up with a self-consistent set of scientific theories is to let the real world and the real evidence dictate the path. IOW, only God is smart enough to make it all self-consistent. When we follow the evidence, we are just learning what God did, as opposed to trying to make it up ourselves as we go along.


Jim

Also if time dilation makes the time on Earth that much slower than the rest of the universe (6K / 14B?) the we should be observing the rest of the universe moving and evolving at tremendous speed. I mean if 14B years were sped up to happen in 6,000 years, then we should be seeing stars evolving from gas in the matter of days or weeks, right?

[Sparko]

Maybe the other people you talk to lack critical thinking skills but don't make the mistake of including me in that group. For example, above you wrote:

"What are your "due qualifications"? Are you saying you do accept that scientists have found ESPs or not? That is a yes or no answer."

No it is not (for me), it must be qualified - here's why: Did the scientists actually find ESPs or are they interpreting what they are observing as an ESP?

Then you are saying you DON'T accept that scientists have found ESPs and no qualifications are necessary. Just more of you dodging. Got it.

It's as if I showed you a picture of a UFO and told you that it is a UFO. I may be very sincere but are you going to take my claim as a fact or as a personal interpretation or opinion? If you have any sense then it will be the latter UNLESS you have grounds for accepting that it is indeed a UFO.

Well gee, if it is unidentified and flying and you and I don't know what it is, then yeah, it IS a UFO. so I would indeed accept your conclusion that it was a UFO as far as you were concerned.


You never did answer my question:

And what IS your position on forming stars and galaxies where we have photographic evidence of various stages?

Keep dodging.



Roy? Another one for your signature? "It's as if I showed you a picture of a UFO and told you that it is a UFO. I may be very sincere but are you going to take my claim as a fact or as a personal interpretation or opinion?"

[Roy]

Also if time dilation makes the time on Earth that much slower than the rest of the universe (6K / 14B?) the we should be observing the rest of the universe moving and evolving at tremendous speed. I mean if 14B years were sped up to happen in 6,000 years, then we should be seeing stars evolving from gas in the matter of days or weeks, right?

You've neglected the bit of the theory which includes all the time dilation effects of the nearby white hole ceasing shortly before humans became sufficiently astronomically aware to record them, without leaving any trace of them ever having occurred.

[Roy]

Roy? Another one for your signature?

Sorry Sparko, current sig has a long life-expectancy.

[Sparko]

You've neglected the bit of the theory which includes all the time dilation effects of the nearby white hole ceasing shortly before humans became sufficiently astronomically aware to record them, without leaving any trace of them ever having occurred.

Oh yeah.


churchlady.jpg

and how does he explain the red shift? If time has slowed down, wouldn't the faster time of the outside universe be blue-shifted since the light frequencies reaching us would be shifted into what, the freaking gamma ray range at that amount of time dilation? something like 2.5 million to 1?

[Sparko]

Sorry Sparko, current sig has a long life-expectancy.

I might have to expand the size of signature blocks because of Jorge.