Evidence for a Young Sun

[Anita]

split second of that event. From all of this we can piece together how things work in space. Maybe not PROVE, but its strong evidence.

I don't like the notion of seeing only split second of events, and piecing together what appears to be happening.

[Himantolophus]

the fact that we aren't directly observing many phenomenom is simply the fact that is takes many times longer than a human lifespan. There is really nothing we can do about it.

what do you think is going on in those pillars?


we have directly observed stars die, it is clear that they must be born too.


the accretion disk model of our Solar Systems formation has proof in the Universe. Notice the accretion disk around Beta Pictoris, showing that planets are forming around the star. Again, the process is so slow that we will not suddenly see planets one day. It will take millions of years for the disk to clear. More validation of the timescales involved.

If you don't buy this, what do you think that image is?

[Anita]

the fact that we aren't directly observing many phenomenon is simply the fact that is takes many times longer than a human lifespan. There is really nothing we can do about it.

what do you think is going on in those pillars?

That plus obscured by gas.

[Himantolophus]

the fact that we aren't directly observing many phenomenon is simply the fact that is takes many times longer than a human lifespan. There is really nothing we can do about it.

what do you think is going on in those pillars?

That plus obscured by gas. So what we are actually seeing in these spectral effects is the light from great distances away that has just reached us. I take that back... what we are seeing is already past tense because the light we are seeing in spectral readouts IS NOT RECENT!

we have directly observed stars die, it is clear that they must be born too.

Yes we see what looks like stars dying, but perhaps the reason we don't see stars being born, is because as I've stated above that the recent light (which is many miles away) does not allow us to see what's currently happening.

Another possibility is that maybe stars are not being born because the Universe is now in a state of decay (laws of thermodynamics).

In the meantime have a look at this website:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html

I'm sorry but I don't see the point of your post. I asked what was going on in the pillars of gas and you say something about the light being not recent? I am aware that the image we see is of the past. The current estimate puts the Orion Nebula around 1300-1600 light years away. So we are seeing that feature as it looked 1300-16000 years ago. If we could see what it actually looks like today, we would need a camera 1300-1600 light years closer and even then it probably looks just a little different from the way we see it now(because of gas movement and star formation). What that picture shows has nothing to do with the "aspparent age" of the image. What does it show right now?

To the next part, you say in two distinct paragraphs that:
1: you believe that recent light (whatever that means) is blocking stars that are currently being formed so we can't view them.
2: you believe that there is NO star birth because of some degeneration thing (which has no evidence).
Which do you believe because they are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

For the record, I believe that those images show an ongoing process of star formation in which the proto-star is in that pillar of gas. Once that gas condenses enough to raise enough heat for thermonuclear reaction, a star will ignite and the gas will be swept away. The reason why we can't observe said event in it's entirety is that said process takes many thousands to millions of years to happen.

To the next part, I have Talkorigins bookmarked and I have seen all of that. All that shows to me is that YEC's can make up anything they want to fit the truth into their YEC fairytale. There is no reason to believe that the speed of light, gravity, or other forces were any different in the past than they are today. I change my mind I'd need to see experimentation or some kind of proof of this occurring.

Talk Origins is a good site to read up on evolution/Old Earth as well. It has refutations to all YEC claims on site.

[Anita]

Himan, what I meant about that picture was that it is obscured by gas which makes it difficult to see what's going on inside.

[Anita]

Another thing that confounds me which has not been mentioned here yet is the available gas in the Universe.

[David Blacklock]

Hi Anita,

I wouldn't worry too much about it, We'll all be dead before .00001% of that gas is gone.

DB

[Anita]

Oh trust me, I'm not in the least bit worried about it. This is because I know that whatever happens in the scheme of things is Biblical, and that G-d is the one who is in control and not evolutionary mean of any sort.

When we understand the scientific evidence we will find that it agrees with what the Bible teaches. The evidence is certainly consistent with a young earth.

[Himantolophus]

Himan, what I meant about that picture was that it is obscured by gas which makes it difficult to see what's going on inside.

ok, thanks for the clarification

This whole thing about the light and distances has really blown my mind! Rationally, who on earth could possibly fathom that what we are actually even seeing out there (considering the speed of light in the Universe) is remotely real considering we cant even rely on what we are "currently" seeing?

yes, the distances are mind boggling. Each tiny little galaxy in a galaxy cluster is another Milky Way with billions of stars and planets. It's crazy to think about.

We are only receiving part of the information and not the whole message. Maybe the question we should be asking is "why" is the Universe set up like this, and G-ds purpose for it?

valid question. Science is working on how things work, only God knows the purpose of it all and why.

But the suggested evidence remains that gas is steadily decreasing and in a state of thermodynamics so to speak. This would also include star birth since gas is need to create new stars.
Another thing that confounds me which has not been mentioned here yet is the available gas in the Universe. Astronomy reveals that this gas is being used up and is steadily decreasing and will eventually run out in the said estimation of millions or even billions of year. The fact is that the math spells less and less available gas. So once all this gas (fuel) is eventually used up, all the stars will go out and the Universe will die. This is only in theory though, nobody really knows what will happen.

But the suggested evidence remains that gas is steadily decreasing and in a state of thermodynamics so to speak. This would also include star birth since gas is need to create new stars.

yes, modern theory shows that in billions of years, the amount of gas/dust in the Universe will dwindle until star formation slows to a stop. But, as David says, this is not much worry to us right now. The hypothesis that gas/dust will decrease with time does not lend support nor does it disprove Young Earth or Old Earth (since this is the past).

Oh trust me, I'm not in the least bit worried about it. This is because I know that whatever happens in the scheme of things is Biblical, and that G-d is the one who is in control and not evolutionary mean of any sort.

so what if God created evolution, or in this case stellar evolution? Does this take away from God if he used evolutionary processes as His "creative process".

When we understand the scientific evidence we will find that it agrees with what the Bible teaches. The evidence is certainly consistent with a young earth.

there is no evidence consistent with Young Earth/Universe. Please list the evidence if you think it is there.

An example of this is the expansion of the Universe. The Bible indicates in several places that the Universe was stretched out (or expanded). Isaiah 40:22- It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

this can be interpreted in any number of ways, OEC, TE, or YEC. This is not evidence.

This clearly suggest that the Universe has actually increased in size since its creation, and astronomers have discovered that virtually all clusters of galaxies appear to be moving away from all other clusters - so indeed it is expanding!

This seems oddly consistent with the Big Bang theory?

Another example of this is the recession of the moon. The moon moves about a half an inch away from the earth every year. This tells us that the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past.

6,000 years ago the moon would have been about 800 feet closer to the earth . Logically if the moon were billions of years old we would have big problems because the moon would have been so close that it would have been actually touching the earth.

A full rebuttal from TalkOrigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

[Anita]

Oh trust me, I'm not in the least bit worried about it. This is because I know that whatever happens in the scheme of things is Biblical, and that G-d is the one who is in control and not evolutionary mean of any sort.

so what if God created evolution, or in this case stellar evolution? Does this take away from God if he used evolutionary processes as His "creative process".

Yes it does take away from G-d because the Bible clearly tells us that He created out of nothing things fully formed and grown. This does not spell evolution.

[Himantolophus]

Yes it does take away from G-d because the Bible clearly tells us that He created out of nothing things fully formed and grown. This does not spell evolution.

God sure skimped on the details because we have OEC's and YEC's using the same text to justify their different beliefs. How do you know you are right?

This article in now way satisfied the question. It was nothing but theory!

the article totally refuted what you said about recession. Care to critique his paper point by point and let me know what was wrong about it? Last time I checked, your recession post was nothing more than a hypothesis TOO. And a hypothesis that has been refuted already by astronomers.

You said in the other thread that your opinion was a refutation. Is you opinions worth more than that author's? Who do you think is more qualified to discuss that issue: you (who confessed you still have a lot to learn) or the author of that paper (who has professional experience and the referenced work of many other professionals).

The moon is next

[Anita]

Yeah so what? I posted part of this post in the forum of "Creation Talk" pertaining to the similar converstion.

[David Blacklock]

Hi Anita,

The technology behind your cellphone and about 35% of the US GNP is due to technologies that depend on quantum physics. That is due to the findings of 20th century physicists when they were let loose to follow their noses with particle accelerators and such.

And of course the universe is old. Are you Crazy?

DB

[Himantolophus]

notice how I address all of your post, paragraph by paragraph

Additionally, I've read all the likelihood scenarios such as the moon crashed into the earth and than made its way into its orbit. However, these again are only assumptions and theories which hold very little persuasive strength. For one thing the earth does not reveal a huge impact such as that on any of its land or ocean masses. Secondly, out of all the moon rocks that were brought back from the moon, not one showed signs of originating from earth as moon rocks are different.

do you even know the impact thoery. The impact occurred while the Earth was still a molten mass so there was no mark left on the planet. This wasn't a direct hit. The object struck the Earth at an angle, sheared molten material off and both objects stabilized in orbit, regained their spherical shape, and continued to cool. Hense there is no mark on either object.

To get a general idea read Wikepedia about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rocks

ok, nice rocks

Strangely they seem to say that moon rocks are older than earth rocks. Additionally they say that nearly all lunar rocks are depleted in volatiles (such as potassium or sodium) and are completely lacking in the minerals found in Earth's water. In some regards, lunar rocks are closely related to earth's rocks in their composition of the element oxygen.

why would they have minerals in Earth's water? There was no water on the Earth when the Moon formed and there has never been water on the Moon's surface for those minerals to develop in over time.

The moon's rock is so similar in oxygen concentration because the material on the moon was once on Earth. This also explains why the Moon lacks an iron core, as the Earth and related Jovian and Saturnian moons have.
See:
http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html

Now this becomes a bit of a problem because the evolutionist claim that the beginning stages of earths atmosphere did not contain oxygen because we know from observable repeatable experiments that in the presents of oxygen amino acids (which I talked about earlier) necessary for life will NOT bond together - oxygen is like a corrosive and pulls these bonds apart. But the geologists know that there WAS oxygen in the early atmosphere (much higher levels) because they find this evidence in rocks. So this bring us to a very unsettling predicament that life cannot start “with or without” oxygen in the atmosphere. So how did it start than? The only logical answer would be “instantaneous” creation.

lets not divert to abiogenesis, lets stay on topic. Life appeared to form in an oxygen-poor atmosphere and only with the rise of autotrophs did the oxygen concentration rise. Where is your source for:

But the geologists know that there WAS oxygen in the early atmosphere (much higher levels) because they find this evidence in rocks.

This is what I found with a quick search:

Evidence from the Rock Record
Iron (Fe) i s extremely reactive with oxygen. If we look at the oxidation state of Fe in the rock record, we can infer a great deal about atmospheric evolution.
Archean - Find occurrence of minerals that only form in non-oxidizing environments in Archean sediments: Pyrite (Fools gold; FeS2), Uraninite (UO2). These minerals are easily dissolved out of rocks under present atmospheric conditions.
Banded Iron Formation (BIF) - Deep water deposits in which layers of iron-rich minerals alternate with iron-poor layers, primarily chert. Iron minerals include iron oxide, iron carbonate, iron silicate, iron sulfide. BIF's are a major source of iron ore, b/c they contain magnetite (Fe3O4) which has a higher iron-to-oxygen ratio than hematite. These are common in rocks 2.0 - 2.8 B.y. old, but do not form today.
Red beds (continental siliciclastic deposits) are never found in rocks older than 2.3 B. y., but are common during Phanerozoic time. Red beds are red because of the highly oxidized mineral hematite (Fe2O3), that probably forms secondarily by oxidation of other Fe minerals that have accumulated in the sediment.
Conclusion - amount of O2 in the atmosphere has increased with time.

Additionally, chemistry teaches us about something called HYDROLYSIS, (this is the action of water DECOMPOSING molecules) specifically amino acids. We all know that water is necessary for life, but it is also DETRIMENTAL to the ORIGINS of life. This information can be found in a basic chemistry book.

lol, you think I don't know what these things are? I graduated with a degree in marine science and I am getting my Masters in marine biology. I have taken many a course on the subject, thanks.

Also keep in mind that life can be found in the harshest of environments. Life arising in primitive conditions is not impossible. If I agree God created the first cell, then where do you go?

So according to the evolutionists life on the early earth did not have oxygen and at the same time it could not have had water either because hydrolysis pulls appart amino acids nessesary for life. So somehow life got started without these elements.

abiogensis is off topic. I can agree that we don't know how life arose from inorganic materials. Back to the topic please.

The next question that arises is that is how the moon could be part of the earth? It neither has water elements, but miraculously it has elements of oxygen?

oxygen is bound to metals, it is not found just in water/air

more references
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/outreach/origin/
http://www.es.ucl.ac.uk/research/planet ... /moonf.htm

there are other theories to the moon's formation and none involve poofing

Fission hypothesis
Early speculation proposed that the Moon broke off from the Earth's crust because of centrifugal forces, leaving a basin — presumed to be the Pacific Ocean — behind as a scar.[39] This idea, however, would require too great an initial spin of the Earth; and, even had this been possible, the process should have resulted in the Moon's orbit following Earth's equatorial plane. This is not the case.
Capture hypothesis
Other speculation has centered on the Moon being formed elsewhere and subsequently being captured by Earth's gravity.[40] However, the conditions believed necessary for such a mechanism to work, such as an extended atmosphere of the Earth in order to dissipate the energy of the passing Moon, are improbable.
Co-formation hypothesis
The co-formation hypothesis proposes that the Earth and the Moon formed together at the same time and place from the primordial accretion disk. The Moon would have formed from material surrounding the proto-Earth, similar to the formation of the planets around the Sun. Some suggest that this hypothesis fails adequately to explain the depletion of metallic iron in the Moon.
A major deficiency in all these hypotheses is that they cannot readily account for the high angular momentum of the Earth—Moon system.[41]
Giant Impact hypothesis
The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth—Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact. A Mars-sized body (labelled "Theia") is believed to have hit the proto-Earth, blasting sufficient material into orbit around the proto-Earth to form the Moon through accretion.[6] As accretion is the process by which all planetary bodies are believed to have formed, giant impacts are thought to have affected most if not all planets. Computer simulations modelling a giant impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth—Moon system, as well as the small size of the lunar core.[42] Unresolved questions regarding this theory concern the determination of the relative sizes of the proto-Earth and Theia and of how much material from these two bodies formed the Moon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1593504.stm

[Himantolophus]

Yeah so what? I posted part of this post in the forum of "Creation Talk" pertaining to the similar converstion.

so what? that's your answer to the last question?