Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Of course I don't know how recently you have reviewed the standard model of star formation.
You'll find that most here are pretty well read on the topic, not least because we have several physicists and science educators among our membership.
In your comment, you have the timing correct, of when it is claimed that stars began to form. But if you investigate, you will see that the standard model, in order to overcome severe physics problems, begins with stars already in the process of formation (not unlike evolution beginning with life already in existence).
Care to provide a citation for this? Only I suspect you've horribly misunderstood, which is what happens when you get your scientific information from agenda-driven morons and the backs of cereal packets.
That's one of the many reasons why we say that atheist scientists don't have a hypothesis, let alone a robust theory, for origins.
Two things wrong with this: Firstly, it's already been pointed out that we actually have several robust models on the tables. Secondly, you don't have a hypothesis, robust or otherwise. Magicmandunit is not a hypothesis, it's a rectally extracted blind assertion.
But you can probably get a summary of the current model of star formation there.
Don't need it, thanks. I'm fairly well-read on the topic, cosmology being my primary area of scientific interest.
If you would like a handy list of the physics problems with star formation (which is why atheist scientists begin with protostars, or, alternatively, preexisting stars that explode to create a shock wave to compress gas into a protostar),
I'll wait for the citations from the primary literature, thanks.
here's one way to find it. Google: evidence against the big bang. Out of Google's estimated 24 million pages that relate to that search, my handy article is usually ranked on the first page, in the top five (just above howstuffworks and discover magazine). Search my article for "theories of star formation", and click.
Ah, vanity press. If you want your ideas to be considered here, present them here. I'm not about to waste time reading the contents of your arse if you can't even be bothered to present your ideas here. Do your own fucking work.
You'll see why the atheist hypothesis for the origin of stars begins with stars already existing.
Atheists don't have a hypothesis for the origin of stars, but feel free to keep trying this lying, weaselly shit. It simply won't fly here,
Bob. This might work on the ignorant rubes who attend Denver Babble Church, but the critical thinkers here are made of sterner stuff.
Rumraket, this isn't really an opinion/conclusion thing. This is me simply quoting atheist scientists on their current theory for star formation.
You haven't provided and quotes, only your own assertions. Since this is a topic I'm more familiar with than you are with honesty, I require robust citations from the primary literature.
So, if I'm correct on this, please consider that my list of six observations needs another one of your "YESs", and then you might see why I characterize the media and the public as gullible to think that atheist scientists have figured out how to explain origins apart from our Creator God.
And the evidence for this celestial peeping-tom of yours?
Hmm. I thought that would be obvious. These topics came up in my interview with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss. You might enjoy listening to that. He became somewhat worked up during the conversation!
Probably because he dislikes dishonesty as much as I do.
Rumraket, perhaps you can re-read my observation there. I don't know if you quite followed it. It's a powerful challenge to atheists. Fundamental really.
Well, since your observation boils down to no more than the assertion that DNA is a code, with the unspoken assertion that it therefore requires a coder, there's not much to deal with, not least because DNA is not a fucking code.
by 
