Creation wiki doesn’t understand star formation

Goddidit!!

Hoo boy. Creation Wiki is at its finest. Just google "star formation creation wiki"  Nobody understands how stars. great and many, numbering in the trillions form, therefore it has to be supernaturally created!

 Of course, the whole thing is  bollocks factually incorrect, but before I begin a critical analysis ......

The magnificent Pillars of Creation,  within the Eagle Nebula,  about 7000 light years from Earth. So called because they are the site of stellar nurseries, which will eventually result in the complete destruction of the Pillars. Image credit goes to
http://www.hdwpapers.com/pillars_of_creation_eagle_nebula_wallpaper-wallpapers.html

YECs love to take jabs at every model of star formation. They claim "star formation has never been observed". Then they assert that gases can only expand, stars could never form etc etc etc and in Creation Wiki's case, they bring up Psalm 19:1 as  evidence. The most obvious thing to spot is the freaking double standards. They never saw their God before, nor did they see their God instruct Moses to write the Pentateuch, nor do they even know the exact date the Pentateuch was written. Yet they believe in Him, heart, mind and soul.

If we accept the YEC model, only taking into account PV = nRT, theoretically nebulae should continue expanding forever, since there's absolutely nothing to stop them from doing so. Then why are there dense clumps in nebulae? What are these Bok globules, which seem to be producing their own light, doing in the heart of nebulae then?  Why do these formations dont appear to be obeying the ideal gas law?  Did God accidentally leave clumps of dense material in the primordium or something? 

The fact is, stars do form. We have even observed them! Furthermore, although impenetrable to light, astronomers use IR telescopes to discover that, although the gas of nebulae are generally a few degrees above absolute zero, dense regions are very hot and produce their own IR. Why is that so? 

You see, nebulae are so mind-bogglingly enormous that additional factors, one in particular, have to be taken in account. Gravity! When nebulae are of entire light years across, its inward gravitational pull is such that areas become compressed by gravitational force, overcoming gas expansion as well as possible electrostatic interactions. Notice this is somewhat similar to how stars remain stable; the outward force generated by nuclear fusion within its core is balanced by the stars inward pull of gravity.

Using the foundations of modern physics, we can of course, derive a well supported method of star formation. The key is understanding gravitational binding energy, which I ll try to explain here in simpler terms. this is defined as the energy required to pull apart a sphere to infinity. So we take a particular nebula and build a model assuming the nebula is a sphere. We slice it into "shells" to help better imagine the potential changes, where R is the radius where the binding energy is zero:


(Credit goes to Professor Chris Mihos for providing excellent online resources-his is the easiest to understand).

Where dr is the  radius of each shell.
 We know that volume of the initial gas sphere the core is v = 4/3 π r³

Since mass = density * volume, we can measure initial mass m =    4/3 π r³   ρ
(ρ is density)
So the mass of each "shell", expressed with respect to radius? dm = 4 π   r²  ρ   dr   equation 1
 

A simple derivative is, well, volume = mass/density, so  dV =  4π r²   dr. Label  this as the volume of each "shell" 
Now, the objective here is to derive a function that describes the change in gravitational potential  energy. We know the formula for gravitational potential energy,
 Its U = -GMm/r.

 To express the gravitational potential energy in terms of dm (mass of each "shell")Differentiate this to obtain

dU = -GM  dm  / r . equation 2

So what is M, the mass of the gas? Same as before, m of course! in this case, we perform a dirty little trick and re-use the equation for m, which is  4/3 π r³   ρ.

 M =m, so substitute  M =    4/3 π r³   ρ     and equation 1 into equation 2

As we can see here, what we have done is basically express dm in terms of dr.
To express U, dU/dr has to be integrated. So lets do that:

Since  ρ = M / (4/3  π r3   )

U =  - 3 G M2  / 5R
This is defined as the gravitational binding energy.

Now for the next step. Gravitational collapse occurs when gravitational binding energy exceeds the internal gas pressure. The critical mass is called the Jean's Mass.

Before we proceed, the Virial theorem needs to be understood first. 


(To prove total energy of a system = half of gravitational potential energy)
Remember  elementary physics, force of an object rotating around the Earth? Since centripetal force = gravitational force
mv2  /r  = GMm/r2

v= (2GM/R)^0.5 sub this into equation for K.E. 
K.E. = GMm/2R  

total energy = gravitational potential energy(always a negative) + kinetic energy = -GMm/R +GMm/2R = -GMm/2R 
Answer: 
The virial theorem works by the same principle-total energy E(total energy) = K(kinetic) + U(potential), 

total energy = half of gravitational energy


For its proof go here.

Now thats settled, since E = 0.5 U,

K + 0.5U = 0

2K + U =0

by ideal gas law, K.E of gas =3/2 NkT, N = number of molecules, k = Boltzmann constant
U =  - 3 G M2  / 5R, sub this into 2K + U = 0

3 NkT =  3 G M2  / 5R equation 1 

This is when the system is at virial equilibrum, i.e. the Jeans mass, when gravitational force = pressure of gas

let N = M/m where m is mass of 1 molecule,
so whats R? Remember M = 4/3 π R3    ρ
rearrange to get: equation 2:  R = (3M/4π ρ)^1/3 
sub this into equation 1
we get M = (5kT/Gm)2 *(3/4π ρ)<sup>1/2

Hence gravitational collapse occurs if:</sup> 

<sup>Hence stars can form! 

Creation wiki can no longer rationalize this. The only thing they got right was that condensing material tend to form protostars before joining to birth new stars.</sup> 

the largest galactic superstructure in the Universe-the Hercules-Corona Borealis
Great Wall. Measures 10 billion light years across! Image credit goes to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules%E2%80%93Corona_Borealis_Great_Wall

 

^{Again, I would like to thank Professor Chris Mihos, whose material I borrowed heavily from. Please visit his site here.} 

P.S. Coming up next: the theological consequences of a literal six day creation of the Solar system. 

Are These Intelligently Designed....

By now, most would be familiar with the views of the Discovery Institute. They have various campaign-related sites such as Dissent from Darwin, Intelligent Design, Idea Center to name a few. I am particularly interested in their daily blog, the ironically named Evolution News & Views that keeps readers updated of latest bits and bytes from the "evolutionist front" (with a liberal sprinkling of ad hominems). 

 The far-reaching effects of Kitzmiller v. Dover probably left them simmering. Nevertheless, its best not to attack them. 

 To quote from IntelligentDesign.Org directly:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."        

 Lets look at the combination of their theories for detecting design, irreducible complexity and complex specified information. I name one that fits this criterion: the CTX toxin of Vibrio Cholerae. To quote Wikipedia (its not necessary to read the whole thing):

Cholera toxin acts by the following mechanism: First, the B subunit ring of the cholera toxin binds to GM1 gangliosides on the surface of target cells. Once bound, the entire toxin complex is endocytosed by the cell and the cholera toxin A1 (CTA1) chain is released by the reduction of a disulfide bridge. The endosome is moved to the Golgi apparatus, where the A1 protein is recognized by the endoplasmic reticulum chaperon, protein disulfide isomerase. The A1 chain is then unfolded and delivered to the membrane, where the ER-vcoxidase - ER oxidoreductin triggers the release of the A1 protein by oxidation of protein disulfide isomerase complex. As the A1 protein moves from the ER into the cytoplasm by the Sec61 channel, it refolds and avoids deactivation as a result of ubiquitination.

CTA1 is then free to bind with a human partner protein called ADP-ribosylation factor 6 (Arf6); binding to Arf6 drives a change in the shape of CTA1 which exposes its active site and enables its catalytic activity.^[5] The CTA1 fragment catalyses ADP-ribosylation of the Gs alpha subunit (Gα_s) proteins using NAD. The ADP-ribosylation causes the Gα_ssubunit to lose its catalytic activity in hydrolyzing GTP to GDP + P_i so it remains activated longer than normal. Increased Gα_s activation leads to increased adenylate cyclaseactivity, which increases the intracellular concentration of cAMP to more than 100-fold over normal and over-activates cytosolic PKA. These active PKA then phosphorylate thecystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) chloride channel proteins, which leads to ATP-mediated efflux of chloride ions and leads to secretion of H₂O, Na⁺,K⁺, and HCO₃^- into the intestinal lumen. In addition, the entry of Na⁺ and consequently the entry of water into enterocytes are diminished. The combined effects result in rapid fluid loss from the intestine, up to 2 liters per hour, leading to severe dehydration and other factors associated with cholera, including a rice-water stool.

Its potency is such that a single molecule is enough to cause a cascade of reactions in a cell leading to massive loss of intestinal fluid. This is the cause of cholera.

Plasmodium infected red blood cells. Image credit goes to
https://vethematology.wordpress.com/category/blood-parasites/plasmodium/

Its even worse when you consider the malaria parasite Plasmodium. They are obligate parasites i.e. they must complete their life cycle inside their host cell, in this case both the Anopheles mosquito, followed by alternatingly infecting both liver and red blood cells. The most deadly kind-Plasmodium falciparum is host specific i.e. it has been developed to an extent it only targets humans. And did you know malaria is killing more than a million people a year, the majority of them children?

To what extent is design ubiquitous in nature? If we are to teach ID, that the flagellum is a product of design, are we to teach them that the type 3 secretory system, responsible for delivering bacterial toxins is a product of deliberate tinkering too? Shall we teach them the irreducible complexity of the eye, alongside the elaborate design of the cobra to kill and incapacitate? Or how about Mycobacterium tuberculosis, its slow replication cycle which reduces the effectiveness of antibiotics, its deadliness which killed more people than all wars combined?

In essence, it exacerbates the problem of evil to astronomical proportions, because the "Designer" would now be responsible for billions of deaths. Yes, the Designer is now a mass murderer.

This is what makes it so disturbing. I understand its not the DI claims its not its role to make theological inferences of designed life. But it is inevitable people will begin to question and ponder. People will begin to realise the nature of the Designer, who, aside from designing life, also decided to throw in deadly pathogens to the mix. Is it the loving God of the Bible?

Recommended Posts 1/6/2014

"Best evidences for a Young Earth" in which our extremely astute blogger demolishes Snelling's argument that there's too little sediment on the seafloor for a young Earth.

Mary Anning and the Age of Reptiles - Joel of Naturalis Historia has dedicated this post to her. Great read.

The Cydonia Region of Mars- It's not evidence of an ancient alien civilisation! Stop dreaming people!! Full credit goes to Stuart Robbins of course.

Backlash over Big Bang gathers steam - Oh well. Fun while it lasted. A little disappointed, but guess we will find more evidence for the Big Bang in the future.

Thats it for now-latest news from the headlines next week!

.

Ken Ham's two questions to Bill Nye

Are there really two Science guys on stage here?

Back in February 2014, Ken Ham engaged in one of the hottest debates of the year, against world renowned science educator Bill Nye the Science Guy. I must admit, his cheery veneer of affability first drew me to his, with his presentation of alternative viewpoints. He appeared smart, eloquent, well dressed, so unlike the stereotypes of the average creationist. Which only reinforced my convictions of the failure of the creationist cause as the debate dragged on. At the end, after savouring the conflict, I was left with its bitter aftertaste.

Nevertheless, before I digress, let us get to the crux of this topic. He asked Bill Nye two questions, of which as of now he has not received a reply. I suspect Mr Nye is an extraordinarily busy person, being president of the Planetary Society and all that. What I found interesting is, that the nature of these two questions offers extraordinary insight into Ken Ham's worldview and its  arrogant claims to knowledge. I dont claim to be a proxy to Mr Nye, but having been asked similar questions before, I can hope to answer them to the best of my knowledge, and in return ask  more questions pertaining to his worldview:

1. How do you account for the laws of logic and laws of nature from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of God? 

The roots of this argument in presuppositional apologetics cannot be overlooked. Bill Nye, in a strange way, actually answered this question in an indirect way during the Q&A session when asked "Where did matter & consciousness come from?" He professed that he didnt know, that we should find out via science. You answered the question "Bill, there is a book out there...." to me, this was at the point I was absolutely  convinced, beyond a doubt of the pretentiousness of the fundamental axioms of "creation science". I will explain more next time.

 Of course, to the average non-religious person, like me, he or she professes lack of knowledge of the origins of the world, or gravity, or atoms for the matter. The Big Bang may explain the origin of atoms, if the BB is true, but it merely begs the question what was the origin of the Big Bang.  Electrostatic fields dont need philosophical justifications for their existence. Either way, we ultimately strive to understand the phenomena behind nature and most of us, whether religious or not, seek empirical data as confirmation of where we came from, rather than relying on dogma alone. Surely you cant fault us for not jumping to conclusions?
So, the answer is: I don't know-lets find out someday.

And now for the rebuttal.....

Ken Ham and his ilk, on the other hand, operate on the assumption that the only satisfactory explanation for natural laws is supernatural causation, in the form of "God". This of course is plagued with numerous problems of its own. Defining the reference frame for logic and nature, even if it presupposes God, does not imply His existence. Where this the justification for the existence of this God, this "timeless, eternal being" then? he has basically invoked the proverbial "goddidit" to explain nature, without explaining the nature of God, His creative power, of which His ways are mysterious and unknown to us. In essence, you have used an unknowable means to explain the existence of the knowable. I dont know if He exists, but I would certainly not come to the conclusion that God wrote the laws of nature based on understanding the laws of nature alone.

2. Can you name one piece of technology that could have only been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?

This of course, shows how off-topic the question is: belief in where we came from doesnt build technology.   One must advance science by gathering empirical data and evidence, regardless of one's beliefs about origins.  In fact, many of them put their beliefs aside for the duration of their work. And the main crux of the debate is about science, not engineering. Scientists dont build technology. They study the world, develop hypotheses to explain their observations, and test them against additional evidence they gather. Formulation of natural laws allow us to further develop technology, and in turn, technology help us better understand natural laws.

Of course, the key is: does belief in origins motivate people to study science? The answer is yes, it does but in not all cases. There are many reasons to go into science: passion, money etc. some do go  into science because of their religious convictions, but I could even argue that atheists are motivated to develop technology/study science/whatever, since they believe that you only live once, they should strive to improve the quality of this ephemeral, fleeting life of ours. Do you see the red herring this question implies?

And now for something else entirely......

Many of the early scientists, whom were touted as "famous creationist scientists" were indeed devoutly religious. They saw the study of the natural world as a means of understanding their God's creation. Most importantly, they sought to understand how their Creator might have designed the natural laws of the Universe, and how these natural laws might have resulted in natural creation. From their view, the Creator used natural laws to create as testament to His own power, rather than continuously violating the own laws He wrote.  Why this feeble attempt to refute scientific explanations of the formation of stars, or of our Earth, or the evolution of animals and plants, of anything that contradicts their hermeneutic interpretation of scripture? Ugh.


More to come.