NO conflict science and the Bible

[Paul Christensen]

There are many scientific databases one can use to get information that is not easily available in Google searches. Google scholar is free and much better for technical searches. PubMed can get you lots of papers with the actual research. You have to know what you're looking for, though, if you used those.

Thanks for that. I will check it out.

 

[Yehren]

All I see in the picture are clouds of coloured cosmic dust. I don't see any progressive pictures of actual stars forming. No surprises there.

Stars are forming in those clouds of dust and gas. Some of them are starting to undergo fusion; those are the ones you can see optically. Here's an explanation of the way we know:

I see, so how many stars have we seen born here in say, the last ten years?

How many giant redwoods have we grown from seeds in the last ten years? None? How do we know what a young redwood looks like, then? When you figure that out, you'll have your answer.

 

[dad]

Stars are forming in those clouds of dust and gas. Some of them are starting to undergo fusion; those are the ones you can see optically. Here's an explanation of the way we know:

How many giant redwoods have we grown from seeds in the last ten years? None? How do we know what a young redwood looks like, then? When you figure that out, you'll have your answer.

Ah, so none then. It is all in a past that you say must have existed based on beliefs alone.

But hey, the pics of creation are nice once we divest your belief set from them.

 

[Yehren]

Ah, so none then. It is all in a past that you say must have existed based on beliefs alone.

So if you go to a redwood forest and see all stages of growth, you assume that they are all different kinds of trees? Be honest with yourself; you're trying to dodge the facts. Everyone notices.

The argument that new stars can't form because no one lives long enough to see them go from collapsing clouds to nuclear fusion is so obviously false that I'm surprised anyone would try it.

 

[dad]

So if you go to a redwood forest and see all stages of growth, you assume that they are all different kinds of trees? Be honest with yourself; you're trying to dodge the facts. Everyone notices.

No comparison. A tree on earth in the present time has known growth rates. WE can see rings year to year. How many stars can you show us in the universe that were born this decade?

The argument that new stars can't form because no one lives long enough to see them go from collapsing clouds to nuclear fusion is so obviously false that I'm surprised anyone would try it.

Strawman, I never said God did not create things so that they could reproduce. I simply asked to see the facts about stars forming now.

 

[Yehren]

So if you go to a redwood forest and see all stages of growth, you assume that they are all different kinds of trees? Be honest with yourself; you're trying to dodge the facts. Everyone notices.

No comparison.

Same thing. It's just a dodge. We can see new stars forming and we can see all stages of that formation in these areas spawning new stars.

A tree on earth in the present time has known growth rates.

So do different kinds of stars. For the same reason. No one ever saw a giant redwood grow to maturity, but we can recognize growth rates by looking at the different stages of maturity.

You're out of excuses. Reality is a tough game, but it has the virtue of being true.

 

[dad]

So if you go to a redwood forest and see all stages of growth, you assume that they are all different kinds of trees? Be honest with yourself; you're trying to dodge the facts. Everyone notices.

False. A tree has no real comparison to imaginary years in deep space.

Same thing. It's just a dodge. We can see new stars forming and we can see all stages of that formation in these areas spawning new stars.

You do not know what you are seeing. How many stars were born and now shine that never existed 10 years ago? Now don't point to a baby born this year or a tree, get to the point.

 

[Yehren]

ou do not know what you are seeing.

Scientists know very well what they are seeing. Would you like to learn how they know?

And don't bother repeating the dodge; no one really believes it.

 

[dad]

Scientists know very well what they are seeing. Would you like to learn how they know?

And don't bother repeating the dodge; no one really believes it.

I know what they believe and how that is sometimes confused with knowing. However, of you have some cohesive on topic point that you think is powerful, do post it. We will see. Ha.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Stars are forming in those clouds of dust and gas. Some of them are starting to undergo fusion; those are the ones you can see optically. Here's an explanation of the way we know:

How many giant redwoods have we grown from seeds in the last ten years? None? How do we know what a young redwood looks like, then? When you figure that out, you'll have your answer.

All I can see in the image are fully formed stars shining through the dust.

 

[Yehren]

All I can see in the image are fully formed stars shining through the dust.

None of those are fully-formed. A fully formed star is not still accreting material from the surrounding space. And some of them are still dark, because they haven't compressed enough yet for fusion to begin. In front and back of this column are fully-formed stars. But none in the column itself. They are all in different stages of formation.

Would you like to know how astronomers can tell?

 

[dad]

None of those are fully-formed. A fully formed star is not still accreting material from the surrounding space. And some of them are still dark, because they haven't compressed enough yet for fusion to begin. In front and back of this column are fully-formed stars. But none in the column itself. They are all in different stages of formation.

Would you like to know how astronomers can tell?

One star differs from another. You cannot claim these are stars of the other sort in the making. That is belief only.

 

[Yehren]

I think his point is that Science cannot explain origins since it cannot be tested, observed, and repeated.

Of course it can. This is how Lyell realized the age of the earth. Later on, Rutherford found another way to test that hypothesis, and it again confirmed Lyell's findings.

 

[Yehren]

One star differs from another. You cannot claim these are stars of the other sort in the making. That is belief only.

The types of stars are well-known, since we can observe them in all stages of development. And more often than not hypotheses about them have later been verified by evidence.

No point in denial.

 

[Joseph77]

Denied.

 

[Yehren]

Denied.

That's the odd thing about reality. You can deny all you like, and it won't change a bit.