Another "statistical probability" that just drives the "pseudos" bonkers is questioning their theory of how the universe and in particular-- stars, were born. They will present page after page of "scientific data" laid out as "empirical evidence" and point out that their theories of speculation must be correct as to how a star is...quote BORN, as they point to an "example" of their theory in PROGRESS as they pat themselves on the back. What is pointed out as an example of theory conformation is the "Orion Nebula", the birth of a star in progress, according to the theory. The "pseudos" have also theorized that there are some several hundred BILLION stars in each galaxy, and 100 Billion galaxies in just our observable universe alone, that which is observable makes up only 4% of the total volume of the entire universe.....according to what is theorized as correct. Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
With a projected age of some 13.7 billion years of age from the BEGINNING, the BIG BANG. Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Then we present to them this "statistical probability" using as evidence that which was drawn from their own conclusion of theory. By doing the math, something just does not "ADD UP". Take the number of stars in each galaxy (300 Billion at least) x the number of suggested galaxies (100 Billion) divide that by the theorized age of the universe (13.7 billion years) and the strangest numbers just jump off the paper at you. By "extrapolation", that is projecting the number of stars and galaxies back to the beginning of time the numbers "empirically state" that if their numbers and theories are correct there must have been 1 star birthed every 37 minutes from the beginning of the universe.....just in our "observable universe".

Does it not seem strange that not "ONE" birth has actually been witnessed after "centuries" of observing the universe, with the universe still expanding and creating? All they have to confirm their theory is one "PROJECTED BIRTH" i.e. "THE ORION NEBULA" (and......none of us will ever live to actually see the birth, as the PROCESS JUST TAKES TOO LONG). A star born every 37 minutes should be easily "observed"....if any of the theories hold water. (R)

We can only see individual stars in our own galaxy. The "birth" of a star may take decades or centuries in our time. To even witness a supernova would be like winning the lottery. We may not be correct about many of the comings and goings of this universe, but it IS massive and we, as in everything on this planet, are as insignificant as a fly in the Pacific Ocean. Probably even less so.

And just think that the light you are seeing from those stars at night could have originated millions or billions of years ago. The star you are looking at in the night sky may have went Nova millions of years ago and not even exist anymore.

Indeed. And stars in their birth are even more difficult to detect, but nonetheless we detect them. Ralph has the nerve to call mainstream scientists "pseudo-scientists", but then goes on his completely faulty and inane "mathematical" escapades that reflects his own ignorance of science and the evidence. A pseudo-scientist is someone who doesn't know what they hell they're doing; usually they don't have any credentials whatsoever (is Ralph a doctor in biology, chemistry, physics, or astronomy [all the fields he has shown in this thread to show complete disdain]? No, he's some religious wacko with the convictions of his biases) and they present faulty evidence for their preconceived biases, and Ralph fits that definition quite nicely. The simple matter of fact, is that his complete disdain for science is telling. I doubt you can even debate with such idiocy that thinks Adam and Eve played with the dinosaurs.

If this forum is truly a microcosm of American intelligence (Jew-bashing, holocaust denial, denial of common scientific knowledge, affirmation of superstition), then I think I'm ready to move. And with such backwardness in our own backyard, are we really much better or modern than our supposed 'enemies'; what makes us believe we're in a position to impart democracy and modernity on a civilization when we lack both?

Am I the only one here who has noticed that Ralph didn't say a word about novas or supernovas...of which humans have witnessed?

Perhaps stars are never born, as Ralph implies,...yet they still go through other sequences of events that demonstrate the existence of stellar lifespans.

No, Ralph thinks the universe was created with the Earth only 6 or so thousand years ago. I guess stars have lifespans of only a few thousand years.

Plus, I guess light must travel billions of times faster than it really does for light from distant galaxies to reach us in time since "God's creation". If the evidence reflected such an idea, then the observable universe would only contain local stars.

Well, on an astronomical scale, I think the very thought of a 6,000 year old Earth (really universe) triggers a host of issues for some very well established scientific understandings.

And, if you ask me, I guess it is always so much easier for someone to simply declare "God did it!"...when the natural world is not entirely understood by such people.

Please present the "evidence" of even one star being born. The "Orin Nebula" is still in a state of expanding and is much to hot to have a chance at collapse, the "theory" is that it will in the future cool, yet all the while it continues getting hotter and expanding. We can very much observe these "births" as demonstrated by the witness of the so called pending "implosion" of the Orin, which is just one. With billions of others in existence surely at least "ONE" would be nearing the point of its "water breaking" so to speak.

And Yes "pseudo" is very much the term to use for someone that "pretends" to be supplying the truthful knowledge while producing nothing but excuses as to why they can not produce the evidence they claim.

Look at the absurd claims made only on the basis of "speculation". As I said the numbers just do not add up. The only thing being "presented" is the quest for taxpayer grants to continue research on something that produces no tangible results. Thus their "ideas" must be packaged and sold as a bigger, better, promise of things to come. I think the apostle Paul had the best line concerning people such as these, "....always learning but never being able to come to the knowledge of the TRUTH." 2Tim.3:7-9. He goes on to say, such men oppose the Absolute Truth. They are false teachers and are rejected by God and they will be rejected of all people who simply open their eyes to their obvious deceit.

Then people have the nerve to say all people of faith do not believe in Science. Which in itself is an absolute falsehood, people of faith do not believe in the ideology of speculation backed only by the pompous methodology of delivering it dressed as Scientific Facts that have been "proven". As I said please produce the "empirical evidence" to confirm the theories concerning the birth of the universe, or even the birth of ONE STAR. You will not because there is none, yet the statements continue to come that "IT HAS BEEN PROVEN". One simple request, show us the proof.

One more statement, you will not find me presenting a personal attack on anyone for their believes or ideologies of faith--regardless of where they come from or what they are grounded in. What I will do is as always defend the truth, and yes there are absolutes truths in this world, as much as some wish to present everything as being relative to individual "perception"....there are transcending truths in this existence of life's journey. (R)

So then, how did the stars that we can observe in our universe come into existence, empirically speaking?

Tis the whole point, MY FAITH IS JUST AS VALID AS YOURS, there is no empirical proof, only a belief. Yet, "I", am not the one presenting my position as founded in empirical evidence, only the faith as professed. How does questioning my Faith which is openly admitted as being founded in HOPE, validate "YOUR" position of holding the "knowledge of the truth", which is science defined? IT DOES NOT, my faith is only questioned to deflect the fact that your claimed evidence does not exist. There would not be any problem what soever, if the evidence presented were openly admitted to be only "speculation". And not presented as "special speculation" and more valid than other speculation. Why? The whole point is----SOMETHING HAS EITHER BEEN PROVEN OR NOT, it is TRUE or only speculated. One speculation cannot be superior to another, as a Guess, is nothing more than a Guess anyway it is dressed. And what I pointed out was the fact, the numbers just simply do not add up to support your "Guess". I do not present any new evidence, just the facts that are being "avoided" to present a "Guess" as a valid conclusion. And I am sure someone will come up with another "speculated tweaking of the evidence" to suggest that the numbers presented can be, "in theory" differently interpreted. AND THE 'PSEUDO' DANCE OF INTELLECT CONTINUES, to hide the fact that there is no empirical evidence, only guessing presented in a 10 page formula that must look "important" to present the intellect needed to obtain more funds from my hip pocket as a taxpayer. Not only must I 'fund' this research that insults my intelligence, but I must accept the personal insults to my faith that go along with it. (R)