tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post8531403501854850489..comments2024-01-02T10:55:10.607-06:00Comments on Angry Astronomer: On Stellar FormationJon Voiseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550625188837528980noreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-38471658084473232882014-05-13T20:11:14.806-05:002014-05-13T20:11:14.806-05:00If you took the total number of stars and divided ...If you took the total number of stars and divided that by the age of the universe, what would you get as an average birth rate?Dan Wardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-85991102810944887452013-01-09T18:46:36.770-06:002013-01-09T18:46:36.770-06:00>They spend their lives trying to prove THEY ar...>They spend their lives trying to prove THEY are the center of their universe vice their Creator and the world He created. <br /><br />What creator?Kevin Barnesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-38171077896146015822012-11-01T10:24:02.110-05:002012-11-01T10:24:02.110-05:00Well, if you read the Genesis account of creation,...Well, if you read the Genesis account of creation, light was created three days before the Sun. How can you have light without a source? The answer...you can't.Daniel Hannahhttp://twitter.com/TheDanHannahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-50836454120772958112012-11-01T10:12:01.686-05:002012-11-01T10:12:01.686-05:00For by him all things were created: things in heav...For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and INVISIBLE, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. Col 1:16 In those days, that would cover atomic particles too small for the naked eye, as well as invisible forces like gravity.Daniel Hannahhttp://twitter.com/TheDanHannahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-74826128452710473202012-11-01T10:07:54.362-05:002012-11-01T10:07:54.362-05:00I have to say, there are some arguments in here th...I have to say, there are some arguments in here that are simply inaccurate. <br />First of all, Cosmology and Evolution are not two completely unrelated fields. Evolution covers a wide range of definitions, not the least of which is Cosmic Evolution(star formation and the Big Bang). <br />Second, the reason that forming stars should show high rotation rates and strong magnetic fields is because this is the accepted theory behind star formation, as the star forms, the rotation rate slows as the debris around it form larger bodies, with their own gravitational pulls. It is not even justifiable to discredit an observation with a cliche', as you have done.<br />As many other commenters have also said, there is not a single shred of observational proof that stars form inside nebulae. It is a theory, and will be a theory until inter-galaxy travel becomes a reality. You cannot use the excuse that it is "an accepted theory", because we know that in Copernicus' time the geocentric model was "an accepted scientific theory", and Copernicus was laughed out of the way for his discovery of the Heliocentric System model.<br />Lastly, you seem very convinced that stars in a galaxy are moving in toward each other, rather than the other direction, as spectral analysis "red shift" infers. Isn't a bounded Universe a Creationist teaching?<br />So now that each of your points are trashed, let's look at your sources. Oh wait, you don't have any.Daniel Hannahhttp://twitter.com/TheDanHannahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-83772410427257435082012-10-30T20:50:16.631-05:002012-10-30T20:50:16.631-05:00Gary Hitch...awesome post. About time someone stoo...Gary Hitch...awesome post. About time someone stood up to these self serving 'liars in lab coats'. I notice how no one, including this 'angry astronomer' has answered your excellent reply here. Aethesists are by nature self centered. They spend their lives trying to prove THEY are the center of their universe vice their Creator and the world He created.Nunyahttp://www.votewithyourboots.info/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-84468667989236051902012-10-06T09:41:36.142-05:002012-10-06T09:41:36.142-05:00Star formation has never been observed. Period.
T...Star formation has never been observed. Period.<br /><br />Thus theories on how it "might" happen are not empirical evidence as to how it does happen.<br /><br />The self-styled angry astronomer makes believe he has all the answers but is only parroting the standard party line invented by theorists who speculate and use calculators a lot. <br /><br />Speculation is part of the scientific process but is not science and is most certainly not proof of anything.<br />The whole idea of scientific consensus is a crock.<br />If its science consensus has nothing to do with it.<br />If it's consensus it's not science at all.<br />The consensus has been so wrong so many times its absolutely amazing it is still being touted as though it were some kind of evidence of fact.<br /><br />This whole article is based on current conjecture and on assumptions about the universe.<br />Those assumptions may be dead wrong, if the past is any indication, scientific consensus is often way off the mark.<br /><br />As for Darwinian evolution, it is simply impossible without intelligent input and guidance.<br /><br />Algorithmic information does not and cannot arise without intelligence -by its very definition! <br />DNA is crammed with algorithmic information. Where did it come from? No stochastic process can create it.<br />DNA also contains meta-information. That's information on information. Another kind of info that is impossible without intelligence.<br />Again by very definition.<br />Code requires a coder - again, by definition. Code is symbolic.<br />DNA is symbol system. Symbols do not exist naturally. They MUST be created by intelligences. <br /><br />The coded information in DNA is mathematically identical to the code of languages. No difference. But there is no such thing as language without intelligence.<br /><br />DNA also contains polyfunctional code. That means its also poly constrained. No natural process can create encoded language that serves polymorphic functionality.<br /><br />Genetic entropy also rules out Darwinian evolution. Our genome is not evolving as per Darwinists view it i.e. "progressing". Neither is any other genome.<br /><br />Indeed, our genome is not improving; it is slowly degenerating due to accumulation of near neutral (slightly deleterious) and deleterious mutations. Along the order of 60 to 100 mutations per generation. We will not evolve into something "higher" (another Darwinist useless term).<br />We most certainly will encounter "mutational meltdown" and then extinction, if nothing changes. That's reality. <br /><br />Nothing is evolving towards more complex as per more functional or "higher". Nothing.<br /><br />As for the fossil record is woefully lacking in evidence of any macro evolution and all touted cases are speculative at best since the past is not observable.<br />All pretended intermediates, are purely speculative and must use circular reasoning even to just presume them! <br />That is so obvious its amazing Darwinists never see this one simple fact. i.e. One must assume Darwinian theory to be true to even assume something is transitional. <br /><br />This is not hard. Its called begging the question. A logical fallacy contained in the very foundation of Darwinian ill reasoning.<br /><br />Darwinism is the greatest scientific blunder of history and molecular biology, biosemiotics and statistical mechanics applied to the genome, are all proving this.<br /><br />If Darwinism weren't in fact the origins myth of materialists who must defend it at all costs it would have already disappeared under its own fallacies and the "mountains of overwhelming evidence" that risen against it.Gary Hitchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-16261061584465202102011-05-10T18:29:14.352-05:002011-05-10T18:29:14.352-05:00What a tour de force of Crap. This is a great rea...What a tour de force of Crap. This is a great read for developing critical thinking skills. One has them (Jon) and one who lacks them (Anon).<br>This was a classic exchange revealing how a true believer will never alter their views regardless of the vast wealth of scientific evidence showing they are way off track. DOGMA! I feel sorry for someone trapped by their unalterable view of the world based on 2000 year old stories written by superstitious and naïve humans. Jon, great patience to put down this drival so well. The Irish in me would have taken over and early on and I would have just wanted to punch Anon’s lights out. I know I know the bible says patience is a virtue. I have a THEORY on that…DrKnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09517415800058503899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-78446969690318908862011-05-10T18:29:13.364-05:002011-05-10T18:29:13.364-05:00Hi jdmuys. First off, your English is perfect. If ...Hi jdmuys. First off, your English is perfect. If you wouldn't have said anything, I wouldn't have had any idea that it's not your native language.<br><br>In regards to your comment on my tone, it's an issue that I've stopped to consider several times in the six years I've been discussing this topic.<br><br>The issue is this: If we stop to be polite to people that make a complete mockery of rational and logical thinking, then it lends credibility to their case. Otherwise we wouldn't be listening to it.<br><br>However, if we are forthright enough to call their position what it is (complete bullshit) then we're seen as overly antagonistic and trying to bully our way to truth.<br><br>So essentially, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.<br><br>I don't think that there's any "right" answer that anyone will agree on. The strategy I've adopted is the one I stated earlier: "I'll be nicer when you be smarter."<br><br>The essential idea of this is that I will meet the intellectual level of those I'm discussing matters with. With anon here, his arguments were so incredibly devoid of even a basic understanding of <i>high school</i> physics, that there was nothing to actually discuss and all I could do was question his intelligence and education. When s/he began reciting things that were a bit more technical and trying to make actual arguments (as flawed as they were) I responded in kind. When anon threw even that away and just started spouting gibberish, I abandoned any further pretense of conversation and stated I will delete any further posts along those lines (which I did).Jon Voiseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550625188837528980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-38444685041733778242011-05-10T18:29:12.679-05:002011-05-10T18:29:12.679-05:00@Jean-Denis:I can't agree with you about the o...@Jean-Denis:<br><br>I can't agree with you about the orthogonality of religion and science. As Brent said, the concept of non-overlapping magisteria is really just a get-out-of-jail-free card for god. I don't see any reason that anything should be immune to scientific and logical scrutiny. That's really an aside, however.<br><br>The ploy that "Anonymous" used was to try to "kill us with kindness." His (or her) arguments were so devoid of merit and so full of logical fallacies, inaccuracies, and (probably) outright lies, that if he did not appear to be the most polite of people, he'd have been immediately been branded a troll and likely summarily deleted. <br><br>Jon and the other science and skeptical bloggers I read tend to have to put up with a variety of trolls, who come to the posts and comment that they don't believe what was posted and ask inane questions that they have no interest in hearing the answers to. They're like an itch that, if scratched, only becomes worse. Continue scratching, and eventually you bleed. That is their goal, really. They want to be an annoyance to the bloggers, to waste their time, and to waste space in the comments section.<br><br>The reason that "Anonymous" appears to be the more polite and less mean of the two is simply to illicit that response from people like yourself who read the post and comments. "Anonymous" reminds me so very much of the character Dolores Umbridge from the fifth book in the Harry Potter series, using a sweet as honey persona to cover a venomous and zealously horrid demeanor.<br><br>BTW, your English is extremely good. As Jon said, if you hadn't mentioned it, we wouldn't have know.mandydaxhttp://mandydax.livejournal.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-39699778264095297072011-05-10T18:29:11.729-05:002011-05-10T18:29:11.729-05:00Jean-Denis wrote:[T]he debate between the scientis...Jean-Denis wrote:<br><i>[T]he debate between the scientist and the cave man. Nothing even remotely similar could have happened on this side of the pond. Perhaps this is because creationists don't have *any* share of voice over here. Or, I'd rather believe this is because we don't have any.</i><br><br>Alas, you're wrong here. They already have a voice and they already are trying to push into the field of (school) education.<br><br>I do not know how it goes in France, but I do know about Germany.<br><br>There are several Ministers (Secretaries, for our American friends) of Education that try to introduce ID-iocy to the boards, for the (and I quote) "<i>striking similarity to the theory of Evolution</i>" (Karin Wolff, Minister of Education, Hesse state).<br><br>It's beginning. They are just not very vocal ... yet.cbvhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01178596164442687677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-72517423992684006162011-05-10T18:29:10.805-05:002011-05-10T18:29:10.805-05:00"Are you claiming the Bible was written befor..."Are you claiming the Bible was written before the birth of Jesus?"<br><br>They must have used clairvoyantsJasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04280433237893989293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-43870395916769578682011-05-10T18:29:09.475-05:002011-05-10T18:29:09.475-05:00In terms of evolution, I was refering to steller e...<i>In terms of evolution, I was refering to steller evoltion. But all evolution is evolution in the same shape and form isnt it.</i><br><br>Then why are you people so eager to stick in a division between "micro" and "macro" evolution if you are otherwise so willing to lump all evolution together? Deny evolution occurs, except for the kind that has been measured and can't be explained away, then otherwise lump biological evolution together with stellar evolution? Explain to me why this isn't a double standard. The theories are not related beyond the fact that they are both science and do not contradict one another.<br><br>I'm less impressed with your ability to find your target. If you want to deny Change altogether, I would suggest you start by explaining how you spontaneously spawned into adulthood and won't get gray hair or wrinkles. The commonly observed process of Growing Up, rather Personal Evolution, is about as related to Stellar Evolution as Biological Evolution is. In fact, Personal Evolution has a greater semblance to Stellar Evolution than Biological Evolution does. Care to start explaining how you can deny all three as "It's all Evolution, innit?"<br><br>By your own standard of "it's all evolution" how can you explain why you haven't said "thee" or "thine" anywhere in your argument? More to the point, why aren't you speaking to me in Latin? But --wait for it-- that's all Language Evolution, which certainly hasn't been observed and could never possibly happen. It is all Evolution isn't it? In fact, if I brought up the word "faggot" you would be offended for a totally different reason than my concern that it is one possible evolution of dead wood in a bundle to support the burning of heritics like me by prayer ridden zealots like you. Oh wait, you mean to say the church doesn't burn witches anymore? That couldn't be an Evolution could it? But I thought you said there is no Evolution...<br><br>If you wanna lump apples with oranges and call them nectarines, I can go on.viggennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-6751284535714562902011-05-10T18:29:07.635-05:002011-05-10T18:29:07.635-05:00Forget what I said before. What a fool I was!Than...Forget what I said before. What a fool I was!<br><br>Thank you, Angry Apastate, for I se the light now! <br><br>I see the light!Noam GRhttp://noamgr.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-27726389380461605072011-05-10T18:29:07.000-05:002011-05-10T18:29:07.000-05:00Wow that was a big read. I'm with the guy who ...Wow that was a big read. I'm with the guy who spent 1/2 an hour before his brain was fried.<br><br>Came here from badastronomy & will return.<br><br>Man I like science, love the theories of evolution and natural selection - they have such great explanatory power. Biological Science at UNSW was cool. <br><br>Am also a bible believing Christian - who doesn't think Genesis 1-2 is trying to say God did it in 7 days. I'd say I'm a theistic evolutionist. Evolution is probably how God did it, but we know about God from his self revelation in Jesus Christ. <br>(Am sick of Intelligent Design stuff - just makes us Christians look dumb)<br><br>Anyway, looking forward to exploring this site more.<br><br>Cheers,<br>RickRick Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-42733056371882511762008-07-31T21:25:00.000-05:002008-07-31T21:25:00.000-05:00They gather tiny particles that no one has ever se...<I>They gather tiny particles that no one has ever seen</I><BR/><BR/>Remember, it is done by observation in the experiments. Or do you labor under the misconception that observation means "viewing"? But ultimately our instruments must interface with our senses to make, um, sense.<BR/><BR/>The other problem with your description of science is that you forget testing. Anyone can 'observe' an optical illusion. But proper testing sort out what is factual and what is not, i.e. what can be a scientific theory explaining the phenomena ("if it is an optical illusion, the circles will measure exactly the same radius") and what can't be ("the left circle looks larger to me").Torbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13304729731231255545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-64632221038367591952008-07-31T13:34:00.000-05:002008-07-31T13:34:00.000-05:00I find the Skeptics Annotated Bible is usually the...I find the Skeptics Annotated Bible is usually the best place to look for that sort of stuff (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com). After a quick look I found no mention of atom in the Bible, but it did come up with one mention of atom in the Quran, though it is pretty vague.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413094709949531656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-47507837152741231442008-07-31T13:16:00.000-05:002008-07-31T13:16:00.000-05:00I still want to find out where the "atom" referenc...I still want to find out where the "atom" reference in the bible is. I found this interesting link that shows the Qur'an mentions the atoms: <A HREF="http://www.articlesbase.com/nature-articles/the-atom-and-atomic-weight-in-bible-and-quran-117420.html" REL="nofollow">link</A>. Clearly as well thought out as the postings of "anon".<BR/><BR/>But the google searches for the bible and "atoms" lead me to three results: non relevant, biblical prophecies (<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code" REL="nofollow">equidistant letter thingies</A>), and pages that my office web filter won't let me see ("Racism and Hate Groups").<BR/><BR/>Anyone else have any luck finding the reference?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-33398453590585114122008-07-31T09:30:00.000-05:002008-07-31T09:30:00.000-05:00Wow that was a big read. I'm with the guy who ...Wow that was a big read. I'm with the guy who spent 1/2 an hour before his brain was fried.<BR/><BR/>Came here from badastronomy & will return.<BR/><BR/>Man I like science, love the theories of evolution and natural selection - they have such great explanatory power. Biological Science at UNSW was cool. <BR/><BR/>Am also a bible believing Christian - who doesn't think Genesis 1-2 is trying to say God did it in 7 days. I'd say I'm a theistic evolutionist. Evolution is probably how God did it, but we know about God from his self revelation in Jesus Christ. <BR/>(Am sick of Intelligent Design stuff - just makes us Christians look dumb)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, looking forward to exploring this site more.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>RickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-39975912453230421712008-07-30T21:26:00.000-05:002008-07-30T21:26:00.000-05:00Forget what I said before. What a fool I was!Than...Forget what I said before. What a fool I was!<BR/><BR/>Thank you, Angry Apastate, for I se the light now! <BR/><BR/>I see the light!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-44327542154884276762008-07-30T19:51:00.000-05:002008-07-30T19:51:00.000-05:00LOLAngry Apostate, I'm actually unsure if your ent...LOL<BR/><BR/>Angry Apostate, I'm actually unsure if your entire post was a sarcastic pisstake or was meant to be entirely serious. Either way, it's damned funny :D<BR/><BR/>.m.hank_sayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18406469261027721291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-41646014706911815582008-07-30T19:12:00.000-05:002008-07-30T19:12:00.000-05:00Reading this discussion thread has been a real eye...Reading this discussion thread has been a real eye-opener to the misconceptions that exist about the nature of our universe among people of faith as well as secular scientists.<BR/><BR/>First I would like to address the "evidence" presented by the Angry Astronomer.<BR/><BR/>He has made much about the "evidence" and "models" that he and his fellow pencil-pushers have constructed from the barest facts. Proper science, if there is such a thing, is done through observation. In regards to the nature of stars, consider how they derive their "facts." They gather tiny particles that no one has ever seen, run the results of these invisible particle-strikes through a computer, and <I>voila</I>, they think they’ve peered into the heart of these enormous balls of light. They believe they’ve discovered the nature of stars—objects so large that they stagger the imagination—by taking a sample of an infinitesimally small portion of that star. That’s like taking a single atom of a pasta dish and presuming that you know what ALL the ingredients are and additionally presuming to be able to know exactly how that pasta dish was prepared.<BR/><BR/>This is just one example of the hubris of science which has time and time again failed to adequately explain the nature of the universe in a way reasonable people find sensible.<BR/><BR/>And it is at this point that I address Anonymous. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous, I think you are much closer to the mark, but you keep trying to counter the logic of these “scientists” with your own logic. I have a feeling that you and I share the same view, and that’s that the nature of the universe is <I>in its essence</I> a miracle!<BR/><BR/>If anyone doesn’t feel awe at the miracle of nature, then they are seriously deluded. Look at the planets and stars around us, spheres hanging miraculously in the void. Look at life on this planet, all of which is composed of spheres (as in the cells) and strands (our DNA). Everything you see in the universe can be seen as spherical (stars, planets, cells) or strands (DNA, comets, light waves). Anyone with an open heart and an open mind who sees the miracle of existence just gets a sense that it has a creator, and that the creator made it in his own image.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, you are also relying far too heavily on the Bible to get your worldview. Think about it, Anonymous, the world WAS created through MIRACULOUS means in the image of that creator, but what is the nature of a Creator that invents a universe that is made up of strands and spheres? It is a Creator who himself is made of strands and spheres, and that is none other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster (peace be upon him).<BR/><BR/>If the Flying Spaghetti Monster (peace be upon him) were to write scripture, I think it would go something like this:<BR/><BR/>"And in the Void was the Lord and grand were his spherical meatballs and strand-like noodles. And it came to pass that he reached out his noodly appendage and said: ‘Let Us make the Universe in Our image, according to Our likeness.’ And it was so. And the Lord saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very delicious.”<BR/><BR/>I hope that I was able to shine some light on the issue, but I don’t hold out much hope for the souls of either the Angry Astronomer or the Bad Astronomer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-68695041147479767752008-07-30T15:27:00.000-05:002008-07-30T15:27:00.000-05:00I'm surprised we don't know each other. I spend a ...I'm surprised we don't know each other. I spend a lot of time in KS. I teach Astronomy in Pittsburgh (Pitt, CCAC, CMU and St. Vincent). Thanks for a thoughtful discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-57207661887882630522008-07-30T09:52:00.000-05:002008-07-30T09:52:00.000-05:00As someone once said (I think it was Johnathan Swi...As someone once said (I think it was Johnathan Swift): "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-38246987506547711142008-07-30T03:58:00.000-05:002008-07-30T03:58:00.000-05:00I'm sorry, but you are all wrong about the age of ...I'm sorry, but you are all wrong about the age of the universe. Randall Munroe <A HREF="http://xkcd.com/376/" REL="nofollow">clearly shows</A> the Universe and everything we know to have been created in 1970.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com