Watching planets form ...

[oxmixmudd]

Man, you plowed through 17 pages of astrophysics fast. I'd tip my hat to you if i were wearing one.

I read through it - please don't take that to mean I worked all the math and verified every step

Jim

[TheLurch]

"... physically plausible ways of forming planets if the right conditions are met." : those "right conditions" are what I am referring to when I say "tweeking". Sans this "tweeking" - parameters and assumptions - it never happens in any model.

So? Sans tweaking, our models of supernovae couldn't get stars to explode. First attempts at models generally fail in every field, just because people can't always identify all the relevant factors simply by a priori reasoning. And you wouldn't expect them to be able to do so.

Perhaps a more relevant question: can you identify any physically improbably conditions in any of the successful models? If not, what's the big deal here?

[Roy]

This is for everyone (O-Mudd, Sparko, etc ...) disagreeing with my position:

Just today (14 April 2016) the article (below) by Dr. John Hartnett, PhD in Physics, was published --- so this is hot off the frying pan.

From the article:

"I accept that God made extrasolar planetary systems on Day 4 of Creation Week about 6,000 years ago."

[Sparko]

Without due qualification, the above is NOT TRUE.




Read my previous posts - I am quite clear on my position and my reasons for it.

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.

[Sparko]

Yikes, I could barely get through the first paragraph. But I'll read it all the way through Jorge, including the 'references (often his own work of course - especially the 'stars just cant form' ones). Then we'll talk some more.

Jim

jorge likes to spam articles like that, then when you try to discuss it with him, he just turns to mockery or claiming "I answered that before go look it up" or some other dodge to not have to actually defend his position. So don't expect too much from him.

[Sparko]

From the article:

"I accept that God made extrasolar planetary systems on Day 4 of Creation Week about 6,000 years ago."

how does this "PhD scientist" explain seeing objects way more than 6000 light years away?

[Sparko]

This is for everyone (O-Mudd, Sparko, etc ...) disagreeing with my position:

Just today (14 April 2016) the article (below) by Dr. John Hartnett, PhD in Physics, was published --- so this is hot off the frying pan. I post it here because Dr. Hartnett says the essence of the things that I have been trying to communicate here (though not as nicely as he does). Also, while my credibility with you may be non-existent, that of a PhD Physicist may carry some weight. I don't think it will because I know that if it opposes your adopted beliefs then you will simply dismiss it. As I've said from day one, "It's not about science, it's about ideology - science is just a ruse."

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask that those of you not knowing and/or understanding my true position on various matters to refrain from stating what you THINK is my position or, worse yet, from intentionally misrepresenting my position. I have ample sound reasons for holding my position, a position that I believe is the only reasonable, justifiable position for a Christian. Of course, that last statement would not apply to the misinformed, the uninformed or to the 'wolves in sheep's clothing'.

If anything else, read the article - it is well put together ... worth the read.

http://creation.com/the-naturalistic...anet-formation

Jorge

Dr John G. Hartnett received both his B.Sc. (hons) and his Ph.D. with distinction from the Department of Physics at the University of Western Australia (UWA). He is currently employed in the Institute for Photonics & Advanced Sensing, and the School of Physical Sciences, at the University of Adelaide, developing ultra-stable clocks.

um yeah, he sounds really qualified to talk about star and planet formation.

[Roy]

Yikes, I could barely get through the first paragraph. But I'll read it all the way through Jorge, including the 'references (often his own work of course - especially the 'stars just cant form' ones). Then we'll talk some more.

Jim,

You might want to note that
- his reasons for the failure of star formation only apply to the first stars, not to stars forming today.
- he either doesn't know or doesn't admit to the cometary impact hypothesis for water accretion.
- he objects to theories of star formation as "storytelling", even though mechanisms have been proposed, but does not object to star creation on the same grounds even though no mechanism has been proposed.
- he falls afoul of the Omphalos argument
- he criticises others for confirmation bias but ignores his own commitment to YEC

It isn't just god-of-the-gaps arguing, it's fallacious god-of-the-gaps arguing.

Roy

[rogue06]

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?

Keep in mind that nobody has seen a redwood tree grow from a seed all the way to fully mature -- a process that takes several centuries. What we have are trees in various stages of growth from which we are able to determine that the process takes place. Jorge, to be consistent, would have to argue that this is mere unfounded speculation because it has no single tree has been observed doing this.

[Sparko]

Keep in mind that nobody has seen a redwood tree grow from a seed all the way to fully mature -- a process that takes several centuries. What we have are trees in various stages of growth from which we are able to determine that the process takes place. Jorge, to be consistent, would have to argue that this is mere unfounded speculation because it has no single tree has been observed doing this.

Pshaw!!! You believe in redwoods? Just because you have seen photos of them? Have you actually ever seen one yourself? Dendrologists merely make up models and criteria to show the existence of these nonexistent plants. Watch this video from a REAL Tree Scientist who proves that Redwoods do not exist.

[Roy]

how does this "PhD scientist" explain seeing objects way more than 6000 light years away?

No idea. Probably light-created-in-transit, though he may be a fan of Russ Humphrey's white-hole-near-earth-slowed-local-time-so-earth-is-6000-years-old-but-rest-of-universe-is-much-older idea.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim,

You might want to note that
- his reasons for the failure of star formation only apply to the first stars, not to stars forming today.
- he either doesn't know or doesn't admit to the cometary impact hypothesis for water accretion.
- he objects to theories of star formation as "storytelling", even though mechanisms have been proposed, but does not object to star creation on the same grounds even though no mechanism has been proposed.
- he falls afoul of the Omphalos argument
- he criticises others for confirmation bias but ignores his own commitment to YEC

It isn't just god-of-the-gaps arguing, it's fallacious god-of-the-gaps arguing.

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. 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

[oxmixmudd]

WOW - it's bad enough that you make such a glaring logical mistake (empirical non sequitur) but then you exponentially compound that error by refusing to accept correction. Oh well ... it has rightfully been stated that people believe what they WANT to believe. Carry on, O-Mudd.
Jorge

It is very easy to SAY a person's argument represents a logical fallacy. But the proof comes in being able to demonstrate that the person's argument was a logical fallacy.

You are quite strong on the former, but examples where you have successfully accomplished the latter are virtually non-existent.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

No idea. Probably light-created-in-transit, though he may be a fan of Russ Humphrey's white-hole-near-earth-slowed-local-time-so-earth-is-6000-years-old-but-rest-of-universe-is-much-older idea.

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

[Jorge]

So? Sans tweaking, our models of supernovae couldn't get stars to explode.

"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.
That's a simple consequence of thermodynamic entropy.

First attempts at models generally fail in every field, just because people can't always identify all the relevant factors simply by a priori reasoning. And you wouldn't expect them to be able to do so.

Agreed. In my computer modeling experience it is as you say. We conducted tests, gathered data and then modified the parameters.
Then made computations --> tests --> more modifications --> more tests ... more data ... more computations ... until the model was "close enough" (it would never be "perfect").

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.

Perhaps a more relevant question: can you identify any physically improbably conditions in any of the successful models? If not, what's the big deal here?

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. One thing that I'd bet on without even looking: it will be as I have generically described. That much is guaranteed!

Jorge