Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

[EarthScienceguy]

Jim Al-Khalili in his book "Paradox" made the following statement on page 148.

"Both our future and our past -indeed all of time must exist together and are all equally real" He also concluded on page 149, "Time is like a DVD movie in which one can jump around."

Al-Khalili goes on to say that there would be no such thing as free will if this is all there was to the universe because of the fact that past present and future all exist and be equally real."

He proposes a solution to this paradox on page 151 and 152. The quantum multiverse. "An infinite number of parallel universes all piled on top each other. And every time a choice is made you are thrown into that universe that looks exactly the same except for that one different choice that you made.

Question does this help the problem of free will?

There are only 2 possible solutions that can happen here.

1. All the alternative universes have to exist there for their past present and future also have to exist.

This solution only exacerbates the creation problem. Not only would our universe have to be created but every other universe almost infinite number of universes would have to be created.

2. We are all God's and every decision we make creates a new universe. The universe that we all perceive we are in right now is nothing more than someones good decision that they made since Earth Science guy is in this one.
This also brings into question what exactly is a universe if they can be created by the thought of so many beings.

As this options is thought through absurdity soon finds its home.



The only answer to a universe in which we perceive to find ourselves is a a universe in which God created every point on the timeline at the same time. This would give everyone the free will they desire and God the Sovereignty that He says that He has in His word.

Conclusion the only answer to this universe is Yahweh.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 89 by DrNoGods]

What (underline mine)? When the temperature of a gas rises the thermal velocity of the gas molecules increases, which can increase the pressure in a closed volume, or cause the gas to expand in an open system. But this increase in thermal velocity does not overcome gravitational force.

Stellar theory says that the pressure will overcome the gravitational force unless the particles are cooled. Every stellar theory has to have some type of cooling mechanism to cool the gas cloud. In population III stars they try to make the case that molecular hydrogen cools the gas cloud.

Population II and I stars CO and H2O are the gases that cool the nebula.

So heating a gas does not "over come the gravitation force", and stars do exist with extremely hot gases throughout their volume because gravity holds them together against the forces trying to blow them apart (nuclear reactions in the core, ionic repulsion, etc.). Either you are trying to apply the simple ideal gas law where it does not apply, or just don't understand anything about the kinetic theory of gases.

It would not be me who does not understand the gas laws it would be those cosmologist that actually do the research and write the papers on stellar evolutionary theory, so talk to them if you do not like the way they interpret the gas laws. Because every theory of stellar evolution has a cooling gas as part of the process.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 90 by Diagoras]

No evidence offered to disprove the claim that he’s made both mistakes.

Correct ... maybe an "and/or" would have been more suitable.

Hard to tell, but I believe ESG's goal is the usual creationist's tactic of trying to find any hole (often misidentified or mischaracterized) in a current scientific explanation of something (star formation in this case), and then to use that to justify jumping to the unwarranted conclusion that his favorite god performing a creation event is the correct solution to the problem. Standard creationist fare, unfortunately.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 91 by EarthScienceguy]

Because every theory of stellar evolution has a cooling gas as part of the process.

But you were suggesting (post 79) that because the autoignition temperature of hydrogen is around 500C (ignoring for the moment that this has no relevance to the star formation process where there is little or no O2 around), that it would "blow up the new forming star."

In population III stars they try to make the case that molecular hydrogen cools the gas cloud.

And radiation, but it is gravity that is causing contraction of the gas cloud in the regions of star formation (along with any external forces such as shock waves from supernovas that can promote the event), and the gas heats up during this process eventually resulting in a protostar capable of nuclear fusion which requires extreme temperatures and pressures. The original gas cloud is already "cool", and composed mainly of hydrogen. The contraction of the gas cloud in star formation is not driven primarily by cooling like a condensation event ... it is driven by gravity, and any turbulence, shock waves, etc., that promote the process. As the contracted gas volume becomes more dense and larger, its own gravity feeds the process and it continues to grow into (eventually) a protostar, getting hotter and more dense all the time. This takes millions of years, typically.

The ideal gas law isn't very relevant to this overall process, and it isn't a condensation event as you keep suggesting. When pressures and temperatures at the core are sufficient to initiate nuclear fusion (H to He), and the mass is large enough for gravity to contain the system (a key requirement), you have a stable star. Doesn't this make far more sense than that a god created stars only 6000 years ago?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 93 by DrNoGods]

And radiation, but it is gravity that is causing contraction of the gas cloud in the regions of star formation (along with any external forces such as shock waves from supernovas that can promote the event), and the gas heats up during this process eventually resulting in a protostar capable of nuclear fusion which requires extreme temperatures and pressures. The original gas cloud is already "cool", and composed mainly of hydrogen. The contraction of the gas cloud in star formation is not driven primarily by cooling like a condensation event ... it is driven by gravity, and any turbulence, shock waves, etc., that promote the process. As the contracted gas volume becomes more dense and larger, its own gravity feeds the process and it continues to grow into (eventually) a protostar, getting hotter and more dense all the time. This takes millions of years, typically.

The ideal gas law isn't very relevant to this overall process, and it isn't a condensation event as you keep suggesting. When pressures and temperatures at the core are sufficient to initiate nuclear fusion (H to He), and the mass is large enough for gravity to contain the system (a key requirement), you have a stable star.

Creationist did not come up with these problems naturalist did. I am sure they believe in the anthropic god also.

You are still missing the problem. The problem is cooling the gas cloud to a point in which gravity can condense the gas cloud.


Doesn't this make far more sense than that a god created stars only 6000 years ago?

Why do you think that this is a superior view than creation. You think because your god clothes itself in technical speech. It makes violation of the laws of physics more palatable and more credible.

Your anthropic god still has to produce the miracle of making stars because according to modern physics making stars from a gas cloud is no possible.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 94 by EarthScienceguy]

I am sure they believe in the anthropic god also.

You should drop the "anthropic god" comments. You've made this up for some reason and keep repeating it as if it were relevant to any aspect of the discussion, or relevant to the views of naturalists and scientists. It isn't.

Why do you think that this is a superior view than creation. You think because your god clothes itself in technical speech. It makes violation of the laws of physics more palatable and more credible.

There are no laws of physics being violated, at least you haven't pointed out any that weren't just obvious misunderstandings of the ideal gas law or some other elementary subject. Stars exist, we can see them at all stages of formation, life and death, and they are generated within giant clouds of gas and dust over millions of years. Nothing you've said or referenced challenges this view or these observations. All you've done is created another imaginary god that you call anthropic god, and made irrelevant comments about whatever that is (presumably to change the subject ... a favorite tactic of yours).

Your anthropic god still has to produce the miracle of making stars because according to modern physics making stars from a gas cloud is no possible.

Obviously wrong. We can observe stars being born within giant clouds of gas and dust. This is a fact even if modern physics had no explanation of the actual mechanisms involved. But if does have explanations for at least some of the processes, and these are perfectly compatible with modern chemistry and physics. Your attempt to fabricate some kind of violation of physics has fallen flat, and if every detail of every mechanism is not yet worked out it does not follow that your god creation idea has any merit. You haven't even begun to move the needle towards supporting that view with a science-based argument.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 95 by DrNoGods]

There are no laws of physics being violated, at least you haven't pointed out any that weren't just obvious misunderstandings of the ideal gas law or some other elementary subject. Stars exist, we can see them at all stages of formation, life and death, and they are generated within giant clouds of gas and dust over millions of years. Nothing you've said or referenced challenges this view or these observations. All you've done is created another imaginary god that you call anthropic god, and made irrelevant comments about whatever that is (presumably to change the subject ... a favorite tactic of yours).

Oh there is so much here, where should I start?

According to your theology stars take millions of years to ignite. So what is being observed are stars inside gas clouds sometimes pulling gas into the young or old star and sometimes blowing it way. . Sometimes these stars that are in gas clouds are very old. https://www.space.com/4861-amazing-star ... birth.html

You also seem to keep forgetting that this is not creationist theory these are the problems that naturalistic scientist themselves point out. We just happen to highlight them.

Obviously wrong. We can observe stars being born within giant clouds of gas and dust. This is a fact even if modern physics had no explanation of the actual mechanisms involved. But if does have explanations for at least some of the processes, and these are perfectly compatible with modern chemistry and physics. Your attempt to fabricate some kind of violation of physics has fallen flat, and if every detail of every mechanism is not yet worked out it does not follow that your god creation idea has any merit. You haven't even begun to move the needle towards supporting that view with a science-based argument.

Again, it is not a creationist that is pointing out the problems in stellar theory. You seem to think that gas laws do not apply in space just like in Newton's day when people believed in Apostle's quintessence view of the space. I never heard of gasintessence before. I would need some documentation on how gasintessence works. I am not quite sure how the temperature can increase without pressure increasing or volume increasing but I guess it can according to gasintessence.

There are all kinds of books and papers written on the problems of star formation. This is just on of the problems. To say that stellar evolutionary theory is even close to a complete theory is utter nonsense.

Stellar evolution is a belief not a theory. People can believe in anything they want to believe in. But please stop trying to pass of your belief as some sort of scientific theory.

[Diagoras]

Oh there is so much here, where should I start?

I dunno. You tell us.

According to your theology

Wrong right off the bat, then.

these are the problems that naturalistic scientist themselves point out. We just happen to highlight them.

Nothing new here. Scientists quite often disagree with each other about their hypotheses - sometimes they’re minor quibbles, and sometimes diametrically opposed. As always, the answers come via observation and experimentation. You appear to be taking the extreme view that any slight hint of a ‘problem’ with any scientific theory is grounds for dismissing it entirely, and replacing it with the catchall ‘goddidit’ - the least scientific approach possible.

You seem to think that gas laws do not apply in space just like in Newton's day when people believed in Apostle's quintessence view of the space. I never heard of gasintessence before. I would need some documentation on how gasintessence works. I am not quite sure how the temperature can increase without pressure increasing or volume increasing but I guess it can according to gasintessence.

I’ll leave the answer to this to the person at which it was directed, as I believe (having seen the evidence) they are far more capable of addressing what you’ve written. However, I have to ask: are you pleased with yourself for writing that? How would you self-rate it as a post on this sub-forum? You claim to enjoy the forum, but I’m seeing more and more evidence of sarcasm and mockery from you, rather than thoughtful debate. Perhaps that’s a natural consequence of being frequently in a minority of one, but I’m sure a bit more civility isn’t beyond your capabilities.

Stellar evolution is a belief not a theory.

Wrong.

“Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." (Ashley Montague)

Religious beliefs are effectively unquestionable, and are frequently held with little or no logical reason or justification. Scientific beliefs, on the other hand, can only really be accepted as legitimate if they are questionable (i.e. falsifiable).

But you know all this already. The well-worn and obvious Creationist tactic of trying to bring scientific enquiry down to the level of religious doctrinal ignorance. If you’d been around during the Renaissance, you might have made an impression, but in the twenty-first century, that approach deserves the title of phailusmaximus.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 96 by EarthScienceguy]

According to your theology stars take millions of years to ignite.

Theology? Your continued attempts to cast science as a religion and using terms like theology and faith aren't getting you anywhere with making your points. There isn't just one star out there that we can see and draw conclusions from. There are billions in just our galaxy and within the range of our telescopes we can see them at all stages of their lifetimes. And if you haven't been paying attention the last century, when we look farther away in distance this is also farther away in time. So not only can we see stars relatively nearby at various stages of their lives today or in the very recent past, we can see the process at arbitrary points in time via the fact that the universe is expanding and farther away is also farther back in time. It is the cumulative observations over literally centuries now, and the basics of physics and chemistry that humans have applied to the star formation problem, that inform us about the process and its time frame, which is positively far longer than a young earth creationist's time frame would allow.

You seem to think that gas laws do not apply in space ...

I didn't say that. I'm saying there are far more involved processes than the simple ideal gas low which you've tried to invoke to suggest that gas can't concentrate under gravity to the point of creating a star, or that the autoignition temperature of hydrogen is relevant and would "blow the star apart." At the scale that stars form, and where the pressures and temperatures at the core get high enough to cause nuclear fusion, the ideal gas law is out the window. It's not that it doesn't apply for simple situations (ie. an "ideal" gas) ... it doesn't apply to the conditions at the center of a protostar or a star where that simple view is overwhelmed by intense gravity, and pressures and temperatures so high that nuclear fusion can occur. The Sun fuses 620 million metric tons of hydrogen and makes 606 million metric tons of helium each second:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

The ideal gas law does not describe conditions at the center of a star, even before it "ignites." It ignores molecular size, among other things, and there are plenty of examples here under the benign conditions on Earth where there are significant deviations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

To say that stellar evolutionary theory is even close to a complete theory is utter nonsense.

And who said that? Nobody. You're trying to turn around your own standard trick of searching for any kind of hole in a science explanation and using that to then claim that your alternative god explanation is therefore correct (as has been pointed out many times by myself and others). That tactic isn't working. On the other hand, a 6000 year old universe had been disproved from every angle possible and is wrong with 100% certainty. It cannot be supported by science of any kind.

Stellar evolution is a belief not a theory. People can believe in anything they want to believe in. But please stop trying to pass of your belief as some sort of scientific theory.

It isn't "my" belief. It is a general view of the scientific community that stars can and do form within giant clouds of interstellar gas and dust over millions of years, and this view comes from a huge dataset of observations over centuries combined with continued advancements in the understanding of nuclear physics, theoretical physics, chemistry in extreme conditions, etc. You can read all about it in science books, published papers, and websites like Wikepedia and many others. I'm not promoting anything new.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Theology? Your continued attempts to cast science as a religion and using terms like theology and faith aren't getting you anywhere with making your points. There isn't just one star out there that we can see and draw conclusions from. There are billions in just our galaxy and within the range of our telescopes we can see them at all stages of their lifetimes.

That is the problem. We can see both galaxies and stars in all stages of their life cycle no matter how deep into space we look. How is that possible if the universe is only 13.7 billion years old? Take for example Hubble's Ultra deep field picture shows all of the different types of Galaxies.

https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic0611b/

It is not even clear how galaxies are formed.

It is even a little unclear on how light travels across space.

Astronomer Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh came to this conclusion after looking at nearly 900 quasars over periods of up to 28 years. When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about 6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion light years away, he was surprised to find that the light signatures of the two samples were exactly the same. If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched� timescales for the distant, “stretched� high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.
https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery ... ifies.html

So your assumption is that stars and galaxies formed from naturalistic processes. An assumption is nothing more than a belief that someone has. It seems as if you have closed the door on the possibility of a creator creating life and the universe. How person be called a scientist if they do not let the evidence guide them to the truth no matter what the implication may be?

Quote:
You seem to think that gas laws do not apply in space ...


I didn't say that. I'm saying there are far more involved processes than the simple ideal gas low which you've tried to invoke to suggest that gas can't concentrate under gravity to the point of creating a star, or that the autoignition temperature of hydrogen is relevant and would "blow the star apart." At the scale that stars form, and where the pressures and temperatures at the core get high enough to cause nuclear fusion, the ideal gas law is out the window. It's not that it doesn't apply for simple situations (ie. an "ideal" gas) ... it doesn't apply to the conditions at the center of a protostar or a star where that simple view is overwhelmed by intense gravity, and pressures and temperatures so high that nuclear fusion can occur. The Sun fuses 620 million metric tons of hydrogen and makes 606 million metric tons of helium each second:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

The ideal gas law does not describe conditions at the center of a star, even before it "ignites." It ignores molecular size, among other things, and there are plenty of examples here under the benign conditions on Earth where there are significant deviations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

But this is not what Harvard says. (I wish I could write my Harvard accent).

Star formation is governed by two dominant influences: (1) gravity, the universal force that causes all matter to attract and (2) heat. Triggered by an as yet unknown event or series of events, gravity's pull overcomes the random gas motions within an interstellar cloud, initiating a contraction phase that will last approximately 100,000 years and culminate in the formation of a star. During this collapse, the gas density increases. Collisions between atoms and molecules become more frequent and the gas temperature rises. Because the extent of the collapse is immense - more than a factor of 10 million from diffuse gas to star - the resulting gas temperature increases from about 15 degrees Kelvin (-433 degrees Fahrenheit) to over 11 million degrees Kelvin (20 million degrees Fahrenheit). The heating of the collapsing cloud poses a significant problem. Since a heated gas wants to expand, the cloud collapse could be halted or even reversed unless heat is effectively and continuously removed from the cloud.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/swas/science1.html

Quote:
To say that stellar evolutionary theory is even close to a complete theory is utter nonsense.


And who said that? Nobody. You're trying to turn around your own standard trick of searching for any kind of hole in a science explanation and using that to then claim that your alternative god explanation is therefore correct (as has been pointed out many times by myself and others). That tactic isn't working. On the other hand, a 6000 year old universe had been disproved from every angle possible and is wrong with 100% certainty. It cannot be supported by science of any kind.

Without confirmation of inflation, which there is not because of the lack of gravity waves that would have confirmed inflation. Naturalistic theories have the same time problem that creation models do. So how can heat transverse the 27 billion light years across the universe in 13.7 billion light years. Inflation never really solved the smoothness problem of the CBR.

But I also believe that quasar problem and the smoothness of the CBR points to a different structure of the universe than what theorized today.

Quote:
Stellar evolution is a belief not a theory. People can believe in anything they want to believe in. But please stop trying to pass of your belief as some sort of scientific theory.


It isn't "my" belief. It is a general view of the scientific community that stars can and do form within giant clouds of interstellar gas and dust over millions of years, and this view comes from a huge dataset of observations over centuries combined with continued advancements in the understanding of nuclear physics, theoretical physics, chemistry in extreme conditions, etc. You can read all about it in science books, published papers, and websites like Wikepedia and many others. I'm not promoting anything new.

It does not matter how many people have the belief or who has the belief. There is no comprehensive theory on stellar evolution. There are many terminal inconsistencies in the this belief. Stellar evolution is the substance of things hoped for with evidence that is not seen.

[Bust Nak]

So your assumption is that stars and galaxies formed from naturalistic processes. An assumption is nothing more than a belief that someone has. It seems as if you have closed the door on the possibility of a creator creating life and the universe. How person be called a scientist if they do not let the evidence guide them to the truth no matter what the implication may be?

Richard Lewontin said it best: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

In short, the only way a person can be called a scientist is to closed the door on the possibility of a creator creating life and the universe, for that is the very thing that makes it possible for one to let the evidence guide them to the truth.