Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

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.

Originally Posted by Ralph

And this proves the theory of stellar birth....how? Witnessing the end does not validate how they came into existence. Please show me the "birth process" of a NEW STAR creating itself from hot expanding gas as theorized yet never proven.

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

The problem is that it doesn't matter what evidence we will provide, you will deny it because of your ignorant view that anything that might conflict with your faith has an "equal" footing for the truth and both are based on faith. It doesn't matter that we have cataloged thousands of forming stars by infrared alone. It doesn't matter if a scientific theory is backed a plethora of different evidence (so much that observances and laws of other fields confer and rely on such a theory) such as something as basic as the universe being more than six thousand years old, the formation of stars, or evolution; no matter what it is, if it doesn't conform to your ignorant world view, you will out of the two sins of ignorance and arrogance, proclaim such a scientific theory as false and/or on an equal footing with your crackpot ideas about the nature of the universe derived not from evidence but only a two thousand year old text written by other crackpots.

Originally Posted by Ralph

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)

Originally Posted by Ralph

And this proves the theory of stellar birth....how? Witnessing the end does not validate how they came into existence. Please show me the "birth process" of a NEW STAR creating itself from hot expanding gas as theorized yet never proven.

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

To begin with, there is no such thing as "100% proof" of anything, even though you appear to believe in such thing:

"The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly." - H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough"

So, I personally have no problem with concluding that the idea that stars are "born" might just be speculation or a hypothesis on my (or others) part.

But, having said all this, when astronomers view objects displaying events that appear to be the deaths of massive stars (supernovas) and the pre-"births" of new stars (protostars), along with other cosmic events relating to stars, it isn't at all irrational to infer that stars exhibit what humans can loosely describe as "lifespans"...or whatever word we choose to call these scenarios in our language. And, when one combines this data and inferred conclusions with what physicists mathematically predict about the nature of matter and various forms of energy, the probability that the idea that stars are "born" is true only increases...regardless if humans have actually witnessed such events or not.

Now, perhaps there is the possibility that humans might never actually witness the birth of a star, either because we have been looking in the wrong places (or at the wrong times), or because we don't have the technology to "see" such events, or because such events never actually occur. But, even if such events don't actually occur, this scenario would not automatically change what we have already witnessed nor what we have already mathematically predicted. (Scientists would, of course, likely have to revisit their data and calculations to see what they may have overlooked and/or miscalculated in their prediction of the birth of stars.) But, when one compares the self-correcting process called "science" with a person's (or group's) non-self-correcting belief system called "religion" it is rather hard not to conclude that science tends to stear our knowledge towards the "truths" of the natural world at a greater pace and with greater accuracy than our religion does. So, perhaps it is best if we let science "speak" for the natural world and let "religion" speak for other possible worlds (i.e. - the supernatural).

(Sorry, but your earlier calculation isn't a "fact." It is a rather coarse mathematical prediction. And it is rather coarse, for one reason among other reasons, because it doesn't take into account the observation that there are numerous types of stars that have numerous mathematically predictable lifespans, such as supergiant stars, mainstream stars, and white dwarfs.)

Originally Posted by Ralph

Yes its true the numbers presented were based upon the "mathematical probability" of an extrapolated formula. But that is why people rely upon numbers, they are constant without emotion nor manipulation. And yes they do project the "obvious", to the point of being able to comprehend what the future may hold by simply "observing" the past. EXAMPLE, post #110, IT APPEARS THAT "SOMEONE" DID ATTEMPT TO DISTORT THE "FACT" OF NUMBERS WITH A PROJECTION THAT THEY/NUMBERS DID NOT REALLY MEAN WHAT THEY WERE PRESENTED TO MEAN, AND THEREFORE THE "OPINION" THAT WAS JUST PRESENTED MUST HOLD MORE EMPIRICAL VALUE THAN ACTUAL NUMBERS......Thanks for fulfilling the NUMERICAL prophecy. "R"

Originally Posted by Grace

"IRAS cataloged thousands of hot, dense cores within clouds of gas and dust which could be newly forming stars." Sounds like speculation to me. Point proven Ralph.

Kat, not that you care, but you disapoint me in this thread. Normaly you bring alot to the table. It seems Ralph has reduced you to nothing more than a Jammer.