I can prove you wrong. Humans have created very small stars (fusion of hydrogen and other light elements like helium and lithium) in several ways. See fusion reactors and H-Bombs. If we can do it, the forces of nature can do it.
Your statement about proving me wrong is flawed.
As regards the hydrogen bomb, this is exactly what I was talking about. It uses the pressure and heat from the reaction of a critical mass of uranium or plutonium to fuse lithium duride into helium! This is exactly what I said before, only in my previous example substitute exploding plutonium for a couple stars blowing up near each other, and the lithium deuride fusing into hydrogen for gas being compressed into a new star! the reactor you mentioned runs along the same basic principles.
By the way, "If we can do it, the forces of nature can do it", is a nonscientific statement. Assuming that something can happen long ago and far away is a very evolutionist way of thinking.:-)
By my way of thinking, science and religion ARE mutually exclusive. Evolution is a religion, not theory. For example, evolutionists would have to do a lot of "tracing back further than the evidence will support" to come up with the big bang in the first place. Did you know that Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards from all the other planets? If the "big bang" had really happened, (because of a law known as the conservation of angular momentum), all the planets would be spinning the same direction!
P.S. Contrary to popular opinion, there are many demonstrable evidences that indicate that the universe is quite young.
Through careful reading, you will notice that the first account deals with the creation of the world.
The second account deals with creation in the garden of eden, when God created one of each creature for Adam to name.
So really, when you say creation, it should be OBVIOUS that you mean the creation of the entire world. The only way you could come to any other conclusion is by anylising someone's post intentionally looking for ways to confuse them.
Actually, red shift does tell us some things, but its not what you think:)
For more information on Quantized Redshifts, i would reccomend http://www.setterfield.org/Redshift.htm I admit it's pretty dry reading, but the implications are emormous!
That was a good example, and it was explained concisely.
However, one point I would like to make is the extremely unlikelyness of the evolution of the elements happening the same everywhere in the entire universe. The chances of the elements actually evolving from nothing is very slim, but the chances of the elements evolving from nothing everywhere in the universe is very, VERY slim. A more logical explination would be to assume that God created the elements (and everything else, for that matter). I agree, some people do not like this idea because it would emply a God, but the more you look it is the only plausible explanation. I am very glad to see you admit that this is an assumption, most evolutionists treat everyhting with a "dogma" attitude.
Secondly, I would like to point out that stellar evolution is absolutely impossible. This may sound crazy, but I am willing to back up my statement. In order to create a star (according to evolution), gas must be compressed enough for fusion to take place. The problem with this theory is that gas just can't be compressed that much by anything except (possibly) a bunch of stars blowing up at the same time near each other. Obviously, if you have to loose a bunch of stars to gain a new one, pretty soon, you won't have any stars!
Finally, I would like to point out that, by your own definition, evolution is a complete dogma.
In order to explain the creation of the universe, they have imagined something called the "big bang". By their own definition (read any modern public school textbook), the big bang was caused by the explosion of a dot which either 1 - always existed (the dot is basically god) or 2 - somehow created itself out of nothing (the dot is basically god). I belive that I have proved my point: evolution is a dogma, and will always be a dogma because it is impossible to escape the fact that there is a God! The only reason for coming to the illogical conclusion that the dot is god is that you cannot accept the fact that God is God!
Anyway, I kind of did stray off topic, but I hope you'll forgive me because I belive it was necessary to explain the entire context of my message.
I would agree with your model, to a certain degree.
The part I would disagree with is about star formation. For you see, it would take tremendous pressure to compress gas into a star. I have read calculations before which stated it would take around twenty stars exploding near each other to create enough pressure for a new star to form. I agree, these calculations may not be accurate, but still, I am sure it would take more that one star, and at that rate someday all the stars will be gone! (Not good for your model):-) In Fact, I belive that this alone would disprove Stellar evolution, because it is impossible to explain the origin of the stars without some theoritical, unprovable idea such as the oort cloud (Imagined to exist as it's the only way evolutionists can explain the existence of commets after the some {a bunch of billions} of years that the universe has supposedly undergone since its creation)
Anyway, my theory is that God created all the stars along with the rest of creation, and, because of man's sin (See genesis for details), the stars have been dying out ever since.
The Bible is an incredible God inspired book, which contains, among other things, a genialogy trail which when added up, gives a fairly exact date for the creation of the universe.
There are also many tests that you can do to demonstrate that the universe can't be as old as some people claim.
But anyway, this coonversaation is beginning to stray off topic.:-)
I totally agree with you.
Up front, I will state that I am a young earth creationist, and believe that the universe is only around 6000-7000 years old.
I am very interested in any suggestions as to HOW you would determine the age of a galaxy which is far off in space, when you can't take into a lab and anylise it.
Speaking of galaxies, doesn't the existence of spiral galixies prove that the universe is relatively "young"? I mean, if the universe was older wouldn't the galixies have had enough time to spin around so much that their "arms" would be indistinguishable?
Our differences lie in the definition of "Better".
Lets say that I am hiring someone for a job...
Even though person B does slightly better work than person A, person B charges twice as much as person A.
Being the standard uS business, who do you think I will hire? Most likely person A, right?
Therefore, because person A got the job, person A is better at his job!
If you can do something better that someone else, you get the job.
If the Chineese are better at some aspect of programming that us, then it's not suprising that they get some of our jobs.
There are many cases when an American is needed for an American job because they understand the requirements more and are there when you need them.
I'm 14 years old, and am an advanced php programmer and web designer. Because of this, I cam write web sites for people at much lower rates than most. Does this mean that I am "Stealing jobs"? Who am I stealing them from? The people who charge more than me for web sites? Isn't this the whole point of "Free Enterprize"?
And, Yes, I am an american...
Slashdot Mirror
As regards the hydrogen bomb, this is exactly what I was talking about. It uses the pressure and heat from the reaction of a critical mass of uranium or plutonium to fuse lithium duride into helium! This is exactly what I said before, only in my previous example substitute exploding plutonium for a couple stars blowing up near each other, and the lithium deuride fusing into hydrogen for gas being compressed into a new star!
the reactor you mentioned runs along the same basic principles.
By the way, "If we can do it, the forces of nature can do it", is a nonscientific statement. Assuming that something can happen long ago and far away is a very evolutionist way of thinking.
By my way of thinking, science and religion ARE mutually exclusive. Evolution is a religion, not theory. For example, evolutionists would have to do a lot of "tracing back further than the evidence will support" to come up with the big bang in the first place. Did you know that Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards from all the other planets? If the "big bang" had really happened, (because of a law known as the conservation of angular momentum), all the planets would be spinning the same direction!
P.S. Contrary to popular opinion, there are many demonstrable evidences that indicate that the universe is quite young.
That was a very disceptive statement.
Through careful reading, you will notice that the first account deals with the creation of the world.
The second account deals with creation in the garden of eden, when God created one of each creature for Adam to name.
So really, when you say creation, it should be OBVIOUS that you mean the creation of the entire world. The only way you could come to any other conclusion is by anylising someone's post intentionally looking for ways to confuse them.
Actually, red shift does tell us some things, but its not what you think :)
For more information on Quantized Redshifts, i would reccomend http://www.setterfield.org/Redshift.htm
I admit it's pretty dry reading, but the implications are emormous!
That was a good example, and it was explained concisely.
However, one point I would like to make is the extremely unlikelyness of the evolution of the elements happening the same everywhere in the entire universe. The chances of the elements actually evolving from nothing is very slim, but the chances of the elements evolving from nothing everywhere in the universe is very, VERY slim. A more logical explination would be to assume that God created the elements (and everything else, for that matter). I agree, some people do not like this idea because it would emply a God, but the more you look it is the only plausible explanation. I am very glad to see you admit that this is an assumption, most evolutionists treat everyhting with a "dogma" attitude.
Secondly, I would like to point out that stellar evolution is absolutely impossible. This may sound crazy, but I am willing to back up my statement. In order to create a star (according to evolution), gas must be compressed enough for fusion to take place. The problem with this theory is that gas just can't be compressed that much by anything except (possibly) a bunch of stars blowing up at the same time near each other. Obviously, if you have to loose a bunch of stars to gain a new one, pretty soon, you won't have any stars!
Finally, I would like to point out that, by your own definition, evolution is a complete dogma.
In order to explain the creation of the universe, they have imagined something called the "big bang". By their own definition (read any modern public school textbook), the big bang was caused by the explosion of a dot which either 1 - always existed (the dot is basically god) or 2 - somehow created itself out of nothing (the dot is basically god). I belive that I have proved my point: evolution is a dogma, and will always be a dogma because it is impossible to escape the fact that there is a God! The only reason for coming to the illogical conclusion that the dot is god is that you cannot accept the fact that God is God!
Anyway, I kind of did stray off topic, but I hope you'll forgive me because I belive it was necessary to explain the entire context of my message.
I would agree with your model, to a certain degree.
:-) In Fact, I belive that this alone would disprove Stellar evolution, because it is impossible to explain the origin of the stars without some theoritical, unprovable idea such as the oort cloud (Imagined to exist as it's the only way evolutionists can explain the existence of commets after the some {a bunch of billions} of years that the universe has supposedly undergone since its creation)
The part I would disagree with is about star formation. For you see, it would take tremendous pressure to compress gas into a star. I have read calculations before which stated it would take around twenty stars exploding near each other to create enough pressure for a new star to form. I agree, these calculations may not be accurate, but still, I am sure it would take more that one star, and at that rate someday all the stars will be gone! (Not good for your model)
Anyway, my theory is that God created all the stars along with the rest of creation, and, because of man's sin (See genesis for details), the stars have been dying out ever since.
P.S. Funny you chould mention the oklahama bombing.... http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_coverup.htm
Actually, if you would have done your math right you would notice that it was the FLOOD that happened 4400 years ago, not the creation :)
Correct.
:-)
The Bible is an incredible God inspired book, which contains, among other things, a genialogy trail which when added up, gives a fairly exact date for the creation of the universe.
There are also many tests that you can do to demonstrate that the universe can't be as old as some people claim.
But anyway, this coonversaation is beginning to stray off topic.
I totally agree with you.
:-
Up front, I will state that I am a young earth creationist, and believe that the universe is only around 6000-7000 years old.
I am very interested in any suggestions as to HOW you would determine the age of a galaxy which is far off in space, when you can't take into a lab and anylise it.
Speaking of galaxies, doesn't the existence of spiral galixies prove that the universe is relatively "young"?
I mean, if the universe was older wouldn't the galixies have had enough time to spin around so much that their "arms" would be indistinguishable?
comments welcome
Our differences lie in the definition of "Better".
Lets say that I am hiring someone for a job...
Even though person B does slightly better work than person A, person B charges twice as much as person A. Being the standard uS business, who do you think I will hire? Most likely person A, right?
Therefore, because person A got the job, person A is better at his job!
This may clear out some common misconceptions.
Good Day,
-Aubrey
If you can do something better that someone else, you get the job.
If the Chineese are better at some aspect of programming that us, then it's not suprising that they get some of our jobs. There are many cases when an American is needed for an American job because they understand the requirements more and are there when you need them.
I'm 14 years old, and am an advanced php programmer and web designer. Because of this, I cam write web sites for people at much lower rates than most. Does this mean that I am "Stealing jobs"? Who am I stealing them from? The people who charge more than me for web sites? Isn't this the whole point of "Free Enterprize"? And, Yes, I am an american...