The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[The Barbarian]

Incidentally, the formation of stars by collapsing clouds of dust and gas also explains things like the revolution of objects around stars, why all planets in our system revolve in about the same plane, our Oort cloud, the Kuiper Belt, and why one is a belt and one is a cloud.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #1000]

For example, the shock wave from an exploding supernova.

The shock wave from an exploding star likely helped trigger the formation of our solar system, according to a new 3D computer model, researchers say.

The solar system is thought to have coalesced from a giant rotating cloud of gas and dust known as the solar nebula about 4.6 billion years ago. For decades, scientists have suspected a star explosion called a supernova helped trigger our solar system's formation. In particular, the shock wave from the explosion is thought to have compressed parts of the nebula, causing these regions to collapse.

According to this theory, the shock wave would have injected material from the exploding star into the solar nebula. Scientists have previously detected potential evidence of this pollution in meteorites. These contaminants are remnants of short-lived radioactive isotopes — versions of elements with the same number of protons as their more stable cousins, but with a different number of neutrons.

Short-lived radioactive elements decay over the course of millions of years, becoming a variety of "daughter" elements at known rates. ("Short-lived" is a relative term — other radioactive isotopes that scientists analyzing meteorites study may decay on timescales of billions of years.)

However, analysis of the short-lived radioactive isotopes and their daughter elements seen in primitive meteorites raised a challenge to the supernova theory of the solar system's formation. The evidence suggested the short-lived radioactive isotopes had to have formed in the supernova, made their way into the solar nebula and been trapped within the meteorites all in less than a million years. [Supernova Photos: Great Images of Star Explosions]

To see if a supernova could explain this pattern of isotopes seen in primitive meteorites, scientists developed computer models of supernova shock waves and solar system formation.

"The evidence leads us to believe that a supernova was indeed the culprit," said study lead author Alan Boss, an astrophysicist at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C.
https://www.space.com/16943-supernova-e ... ation.html

Yes, I am familiar with this theory. Thanks for the article I was looking for an article on this.

There are two big problems with star formation at the start of the universe.
1. How do you cool stars in a hot environment?
2. How would a supernova cause the collapse of a nebula before there were stars?

I do not know why you have problems with the Z-pinch theory of star formation. The articles I cited were not from any creationist. Although the one article did have some of Walt Brown's diagrams in it. My guess is that this z-pinch theory will catch on because it gets rid of so many problems in star formation and nucleosynthesis.

It's not a star. At that point, it's a collapsing cloud. Once it gains enough concentrated mass to fire up fusion, there's no problem pulling the rest together. But we can observe the process right now...

The 30 Doradus Nebula is in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way located 170,000 light-years from Earth. Nebulas like 30 Doradus are signposts of recent star birth. High-energy ultraviolet radiation from young, hot, massive stars in R136 causes surrounding gaseous material to glow. Previous Hubble telescope observations showed that R136 contains several dozen of the most massive stars known, each about 100 times the mass of the Sun and about 10 times as hot. These stellar behemoths formed about 2 million years ago.

The stars in R136 produce intense "stellar winds," streams of material traveling at several million miles an hour. These winds push the gas away from the cluster and compress the inner regions of the surrounding gas and dust clouds (seen in the image as the pinkish material). The intense pressure triggers the collapse of parts of the clouds, producing a new star formation around the central cluster. Most stars in the nursery are not visible because they are still encased in cocoons of gas and dust.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/hubbles-p ... ing-region
All of this is based on whether this cooling method actually works. I have my doubts.
Since we see stars forming, it's a moot point.

We see stars but we do not see star formation. In your theory that would take hundreds of thousands of years or longer depending on your favorite theory.

Maybe they aren't smart enough to know they can't form, and go ahead and form anyway.

Creatism has a mechanism. So what is your point? Your mechanism does not work according to current physics. Why do you always want to go outside of current physics?

Regular Christians also think God created living things. The difference between us and YE creationists, is that we don't disapprove of the way He did it.

You have yet to prove that He created life according to your theory and that He created stars according to your theory.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #1001]

Incidentally, the formation of stars by collapsing clouds of dust and gas also explains things like the revolution of objects around stars, why all planets in our system revolve in about the same plane, our Oort cloud, the Kuiper Belt, and why one is a belt and one is a cloud.

No, it does not because stars have an angular momentum problem also.

• Evolution of Angular Momentum Distribution during Star Formation. If the angular momentum of the molecular cloud core were conserved during the star formation process, a new-born star would rotate much faster than its fission speed. This constitutes the angular momentum problem of new-born stars.

• The angular momentum problem was first studied in the context of single stars forming
  in isolation (Mestel 1965; Spitzer 1968), but it now seems likely that most stars form not in
  isolation but in systems such as binary or multiple systems or clusters, and in this case, it
  is necessary to consider both the orbital and the spin components of the angular momentum
  of the matter from which each star forms. If a star-forming cloud core forms a binary or
  multiple system, some of its angular momentum evidently goes into stellar orbital motions,
  Angular Momentum and the Formation of Stars and Black Holes 2
  plausibly accounting for the orbital component of the angular momentum of the matter from
  which each star forms, but the spin angular momentum of this matter must still be removed
  or redistributed during the star formation process. The excess spin angular momentum of the
  matter from which each star forms could in principle be transferred to outlying gas or to the
  orbital motions of other stars, and both magnetic and gravitational forces can play important
  roles in this loss or redistribution of angular momentum. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.4325.pdf

So that means solar systems like ours have no hope of being born. And yet here we are.

[Diogenes]

There are two big problems with star formation at the start of the universe.
1. How do you cool stars in a hot environment?
2. How would a supernova cause the collapse of a nebula before there were stars?

The level of ignorance your questions and claims display is nothing short of astounding. It would be surprising were it not for your choice to ignore facts and reality in order to believe in the cosmological fairy tale presented by Genesis, compressing 4 Billion years into 6000 years... or is it six days?
The answer to your questions based on false assumptions is answered by the first two lines of a Wikipedia article:

A supernova is a powerful and luminous explosion of a star. A supernova occurs during the last evolutionary stages of a massive star or when a white dwarf is triggered into runaway nuclear fusion.

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

First, the universe is not a 'hot environment.' Outer space is minus 453.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
Second, stars cool because they consume their own fuel during the nuclear fusion that powers their light and heat.

A supernova IS a star, a massive star during its last stage during rapid and escalating nuclear fusion. Re: star formation:

According to the cosmological models, the first small systems capable of forming stars should have appeared between 100 million and 250 million years after the big bang. These protogalaxies would have been 100,000 to one million times more massive than the sun and would have measured about 30 to 100 light-years across. These properties are similar to those of the molecular gas clouds in which stars are currently forming in the Milky Way....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... in-the-un/

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1004]

There are two big problems with star formation at the start of the universe.
1. How do you cool stars in a hot environment?
2. How would a supernova cause the collapse of a nebula before there were stars?
The level of ignorance your questions and claims display is nothing short of astounding. It would be surprising were it not for your choice to ignore facts and reality in order to believe in the cosmological fairy tale presented by Genesis, compressing 4 Billion years into 6000 years... or is it six days?
The answer to your questions based on false assumptions is answered by the first two lines of a Wikipedia article:
A supernova is a powerful and luminous explosion of a star. A supernova occurs during the last evolutionary stages of a massive star or when a white dwarf is triggered into runaway nuclear fusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

First, the universe is not a 'hot environment.' Outer space is minus 453.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
Second, stars cool because they consume their own fuel during the nuclear fusion that powers their light and heat.

You really do not understand this do you?
T

• his expansion implies the universe was smaller, denser and hotter in the distant past. When the visible universe was half its present size, the density of matter was eight times higher and the cosmic microwave background was twice as hot. https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_ ... 20as%20hot.

So that means when the universe was only 100 to 200 million years old it was much hotter.

So space was not your minus 453.8 degrees Fahrenheit. We use Celcius and Kelvin in science.

And how could a supernova create the first stars when there were not stars? Because the first stars would have been, well, FIRST.

[The Barbarian]

Incidentally, the formation of stars by collapsing clouds of dust and gas also explains things like the revolution of objects around stars, why all planets in our system revolve in about the same plane, our Oort cloud, the Kuiper Belt, and why one is a belt and one is a cloud.

No, it does not

It does. Conservation of angular momentum means that even very small net angular motion in a very large cloud will cause increased rotational speed as the cloud condenses. And such motion will flatten the cloud out to a disk. More distant parts of the cloud will rotate more slowly. Which is what we see in the solar system. The Kuiper belt, being relatively close to the center, formed a disk. The far reaches of the cloud, slow moving, and as affected by neighboring stars as by the new star at the center, remained spherical. There is some evidence for a somewhat closer Oort disk, BTW.

Evolution of Angular Momentum Distribution during Star Formation. If the angular momentum of the molecular cloud core were conserved during the star formation process, a new-born star would rotate much faster than its fission speed. This constitutes the angular momentum problem of new-born stars.

Well, let's take a look...

The Astrophysical Journal, 528:L41–L44, 2000 January 1 2000.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANGULAR MOMENTUM DISTRIBUTION DURING STAR FORMATION
In this Letter, the angular momentum transfer in the contraction of a rotating magnetized cloud
is studied with axisymmetric MHD simulations. Because of the large dynamic range covered by the nested-grid
method, the structure of the cloud in the range from 10 AU to 0.1 pc is explored. First, the cloud experiences
a runaway collapse, and a disk forms perpendicularly to the magnetic field, in which the central density increases
greatly in a finite timescale. In this phase, the specific angular momentum j of the disk decreases to about one-
third of the initial cloud. After the central density of the disk exceeds ∼10 10 cm23 , the infall on to the central
object develops. In this accretion stage, the rotation motion and thus the toroidal magnetic field drive the outflow.
The angular momentum of the central object is transferred efficiently by the outflow as well as by the effect of
the magnetic stress. In 7000 yr from the core formation, the specific angular momentum of the central 0.17 M,
decreases a factor of 1024 from the initial value (i.e., from 10 20 to 10 16 cm2 s21 )

So that means solar systems like ours have no hope of being born.

And yet here we are. The paper cited above explains why.

Not according to astrophysicists. I'll defer to their expertise, considering the fact that we have all that evidence of the star system being formed by such forces.

[The Barbarian]

And how could a supernova create the first stars when there were not stars? Because the first stars would have been, well, FIRST.

As you see, the mechanism for condensation of clouds into stars is well-known and the cooling issue clearly explains why it can happen.

[The Barbarian]

For example, the shock wave from an exploding supernova.

The shock wave from an exploding star likely helped trigger the formation of our solar system, according to a new 3D computer model, researchers say.

The solar system is thought to have coalesced from a giant rotating cloud of gas and dust known as the solar nebula about 4.6 billion years ago. For decades, scientists have suspected a star explosion called a supernova helped trigger our solar system's formation. In particular, the shock wave from the explosion is thought to have compressed parts of the nebula, causing these regions to collapse.

According to this theory, the shock wave would have injected material from the exploding star into the solar nebula. Scientists have previously detected potential evidence of this pollution in meteorites. These contaminants are remnants of short-lived radioactive isotopes — versions of elements with the same number of protons as their more stable cousins, but with a different number of neutrons.

Short-lived radioactive elements decay over the course of millions of years, becoming a variety of "daughter" elements at known rates. ("Short-lived" is a relative term — other radioactive isotopes that scientists analyzing meteorites study may decay on timescales of billions of years.)

However, analysis of the short-lived radioactive isotopes and their daughter elements seen in primitive meteorites raised a challenge to the supernova theory of the solar system's formation. The evidence suggested the short-lived radioactive isotopes had to have formed in the supernova, made their way into the solar nebula and been trapped within the meteorites all in less than a million years. [Supernova Photos: Great Images of Star Explosions]

To see if a supernova could explain this pattern of isotopes seen in primitive meteorites, scientists developed computer models of supernova shock waves and solar system formation.

"The evidence leads us to believe that a supernova was indeed the culprit," said study lead author Alan Boss, an astrophysicist at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C.
https://www.space.com/16943-supernova-e ... ation.html

There are two big problems with star formation at the start of the universe.

We don't even know how the universe started. But telling stories that can't be substantiated is not something science should be doing.

1. How do you cool stars in a hot environment?

Stars must be hotter than the environment around them.

2. How would a supernova cause the collapse of a nebula before there were stars?

That would require some amount of anisotropy following the expansion. Turns out there was:
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsyst ... probe.html

I do not know why you have problems with the Z-pinch theory of star formation.

Lack of evidence, to begin with.

Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology reject it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as the currently accepted Big Bang model.[4] Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s.

The term plasma universe is sometimes used as a synonym for plasma cosmology, as an alternative description of the plasma in the universe. Plasma cosmology should not be confused with the pseudo-scientific ideas of the Electric Universe, which, for example, states that electric currents flow into stars and power them like light bulbs.

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

The articles I cited were not from any creationist. Although the one article did have some of Walt Brown's diagrams in it. My guess is that this z-pinch theory will catch on because it gets rid of so many problems in star formation and nucleosynthesis.

"Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s."

It's not a star. At that point, it's a collapsing cloud. Once it gains enough concentrated mass to fire up fusion, there's no problem pulling the rest together. But we can observe the process right now...

The 30 Doradus Nebula is in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way located 170,000 light-years from Earth. Nebulas like 30 Doradus are signposts of recent star birth. High-energy ultraviolet radiation from young, hot, massive stars in R136 causes surrounding gaseous material to glow. Previous Hubble telescope observations showed that R136 contains several dozen of the most massive stars known, each about 100 times the mass of the Sun and about 10 times as hot. These stellar behemoths formed about 2 million years ago.

The stars in R136 produce intense "stellar winds," streams of material traveling at several million miles an hour. These winds push the gas away from the cluster and compress the inner regions of the surrounding gas and dust clouds (seen in the image as the pinkish material). The intense pressure triggers the collapse of parts of the clouds, producing a new star formation around the central cluster. Most stars in the nursery are not visible because they are still encased in cocoons of gas and dust.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/hubbles-p ... ing-region

All of this is based on whether this cooling method actually works. I have my doubts.

Since we see stars forming, it's a moot point.

We see stars but we do not see star formation. In your theory that would take hundreds of thousands of years or longer depending on your favorite theory.

You've been misled about that.
This NASA Hubble Space Telescope image captures one of three segments that comprise a 65-light-year wide star-forming region named the Chamaeleon Cloud Complex. The segment in this Hubble composite image, called Chamaeleon Cloud I (Cha I), reveals dusty-dark clouds where stars are forming, dazzling reflection nebulae glowing by the light of bright-blue young stars, and radiant knots called Herbig-Haro objects.

Herbig-Haro objects are bright clumps and arcs of interstellar gas shocked and energized by jets expelled from infant “protostars” in the process of forming. The white-orange cloud at the bottom of the image hosts one of these protostars at its center. Its brilliant white jets of hot gas are ejected in narrow torrents from the protostar’s poles, creating the Herbig-Haro object HH 909A.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... mosiac.jpg

Maybe they aren't smart enough to know they can't form, and go ahead and form anyway.

Creatism has a mechanism.

Creationism: "God mustadunnit." Science observes it going on by known physical laws.

So what is your point? Your mechanism does not work according to current physics.

See above. It does work according to current astrophysics, and we are observing it happen. Why do you always want to go outside of current physics?

Regular Christians also think God created living things. The difference between us and YE creationists, is that we don't disapprove of the way He did it.

You have yet to prove that He created life according to your theory.

As evidence continues to come in, we see more and more evidence that creationism is wrong, and that God had it right when He said the earth brought forth living things. Most notably, we have now found all the nucleotides that are part of nucleic acids in meteorites, showing that they form abiotically.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/all ... meteorites

And the accumulating evidence makes the creationist belief less and less likely.

Even IDers are giving up on it...
In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Discovery Institute Fellow and IDer Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

and that He created stars according to your theory.

Observation of forming stars and the laws of physics. Pretty good evidence, I think.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #1006]

Incidentally, the formation of stars by collapsing clouds of dust and gas also explains things like the revolution of objects around stars, why all planets in our system revolve in about the same plane, our Oort cloud, the Kuiper Belt, and why one is a belt and one is a cloud.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:34 am

No, it does not

It does. Conservation of angular momentum means that even very small net angular motion in a very large cloud will cause increased rotational speed as the cloud condenses. And such motion will flatten the cloud out to a disk. More distant parts of the cloud will rotate more slowly. Which is what we see in the solar system. The Kuiper belt, being relatively close to the center, formed a disk. The far reaches of the cloud, slow-moving, and as affected by neighboring stars as by the new star at the center, remained spherical. There is some evidence for a somewhat closer Oort disk, BTW.

Ok, I am not sure if you are understanding the problem.

Example. When an ice skater goes to spin and they have their arms out they spin slower when they pull their arm closer to their body they spin faster because of angular momentum. The larger percentage of the mass in the middle the faster an object should be spinning. That is not what we find in our solar system or any other solar system. The sun is 99% of the mass in the solar system so it should have 99% of the angular momentum. That is not what we find we find just the opposite 99% of the angular momentum resides in the planets.

1st. Let us assume that this magnetized breaking system is correct like this paper says also it is.

• If the magnetized scenario we propose is common, recent works suggest that the angular momentum problem for star formation may be actually “solved” not by the formation of large disks but by the combination of 1) lack of organized rotation motions at large envelope radii, 2) the inefficient angular momentum transport due to magnetic braking in the inner envelope (and angular momentum removed through rotating outflows generated by the presence of the magnetic field), and 3) a local origin of the angular momentum incorporated in the star–disk system.
  
  Major questions however remain to be solved for the next generations of astrophysicists. First, our understanding of the origin of the angular momentum that eventually builds the disks is very incomplete.
  https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 49223/full

So I would ask the question why would our understanding of the origin of the angular momentum that eventually builds the disks is very incomplete.

Because for the molecular cloud to collapse, the cloud cannot have any magnetic fields due to unpaired charges that oppose the collapse. Any induced pressure from magnetic fields will cause the ions that carry the magnetic field to slowly diffuse out of the cloud, taking the magnetic fields with them. At least that is the story. HET620-M09A01: Planet Formation: Disk Formation and Evolution, Swinburne University of Technology, 2011; astronomy.swin.edu.au.

But then you need magnetic fields to cause the breaking. So magnetic fields are used to cause the breaking because they cause an expansion or stop the contraction. So this "solution" to the angular momentum problem cause a bigger problem with the contraction and the Jeans limit and cooling.

So we have a problem here. The molecular cloud cannot collapse if there is any type of magnetic field. But there has to be a magnetic field in order for the angular breaking to happen.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #1006]

Incidentally, the formation of stars by collapsing clouds of dust and gas also explains things like the revolution of objects around stars, why all planets in our system revolve in about the same plane, our Oort cloud, the Kuiper Belt, and why one is a belt and one is a cloud.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:34 am

No, it does not

It does. Conservation of angular momentum means that even very small net angular motion in a very large cloud will cause increased rotational speed as the cloud condenses. And such motion will flatten the cloud out to a disk. More distant parts of the cloud will rotate more slowly. Which is what we see in the solar system. The Kuiper belt, being relatively close to the center, formed a disk. The far reaches of the cloud, slow-moving, and as affected by neighboring stars as by the new star at the center, remained spherical. There is some evidence for a somewhat closer Oort disk, BTW.

Ok, I am not sure if you are understanding the problem.

It seems you are assuming the mass of the solar system to be a single object. It is not. The Earth, for example, has a smaller percentage of angular momentum of the Earth/Moon system than the percent of mass it has. How can this be?

You see, angular momentum is being lost by the Earth to the moon via tidal forces. The Earth is slowing down with gradually longer days, while the moon is speeding up (and therefore receding from the Earth.

Using only known physical laws, simulations show that solar systems form as we see them today.

So we have a problem here.

Astrophysicists have found otherwise. See above.