Good day friends.

First I would like to congratulate Universe Today with their new Website!!! It looks very good. Easier navigateable (sp).

I would like to know if anybody can direct me to a site or explain to me what the evidence is for Star formation. Also regarding the Redshift Theory, what indicates that light will have the same properties than sound, to be more compressed the closer you move?

The reason for these questions is Creation Science, I read some articles about the Topic and found some interesting theories. I would like to sift through the proposed evidence for facts.

Please help if at all possible.

Regards,

Derick van Zyl.

Redshift has been prove by theoretical and practial application, you can read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Star formation is a theory pieced together from observational and theoretical evidence until the theory fits the observed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

Has this ever been observed since the explanations only refer to theories?

I presume you mean the star formation ?, it has been observed to some extent, the problem is your trying to track changes in something that occurs over several thousands to tens of millions of years, so that it can only ever be frames of time in the evolution interspaced with theory.

Many of the main key points on the evolutionary track have been observed either directly or indirectly with the various theories linking them .

Young stars in the process of forming have been observed many times,here for example:
http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach/Edu/sform.html

For more information on young stars, have a search for 'T-Tauri '

Thanks, needed to copy the passage for a bit of study...lol. But thanks. There is one more thing I would like toget more clarity on... How do they determine if a nebulosity is around a star or in front of the star?

You can determine a nebulas location by observing the star, if the nebula is in front of it you will emission lines where the light from the star has been been absorbed and re-emitted by the nebula as well as absorption lines where energy has been absorbed and not fully re-emitted along the line of sight.

You have been most helpful, thank you.

The theories have predicted things you would expect to see in subsequent observations, these have been found to fit the predictions.

__________________
And the "driving on the freeway on a scooter" analogy still holds true because the pilots are sitting in 7 to 30 ton aircraft o' doom and you are running around them in your very own Meatbody, Mark I. Beep, beep.
Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

I understand but most of it is still theoretical.

So what? Everything is "theoretical". The whole process of star formation cannot ever be observed, in practice or even in principle. Either you are willing to accept that science works, or you are not. If you are, then star formation can only be considered a scientifcally proven fact, no way around that. For starters, see my webpage: Hertzsprung Russell Diagram And Stellar Evolution, and the links at the bottom of the page (I haven't checked the links myself lately, if you find any bad ones, let me know).

The "proposed evidence" is itself the "facts" that you are looking for, and there are tens of thousands of pages of it for you to spend the rest of your life "sifting" through. A theory is essentially a story told to make sense out of the facts in evidence. Science recognizes a large collection of "laws of nature" (themselves sometimes the subject of debate), and we insist that all of the stories we call "theories" must be consistent with all of the "laws" and all of the "facts" in evidence. It is often the case that this can't be, and there is commonly one or a few inconsistencies. The more inconsistencies, the less likely it is that anyone will have much respect for the theory. Too many inconsistencies, and we just throw it out.

The theory of star formation is sufficiently consistent with the facts in evidence to be well respected and widely accepted.

Creation "science" is not in fact "science" at all, as creation "scientists" do not respect the fundamental principles of an honest investigation of the natural world. They do not follow the principles of science, nor do they respect its methods. But they know that the word "science" has a lot of propaganda value, so they use it for that purpose. They call themselves "scientists", and then hope you will not notice that they are not really scientists at all. Don't waste your time on it.

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

Tim, thanks for the replay and the link.

First thing, may I print your page for study purposes?

Second, the Bible maybe gives a dramatic representation of the creation of earth. But it does have some good theories, regardless of what some people made it out to be. I think if one made a study into it, one will find some interesting facts.

For instance... What gives scientists the idea the earth has always been the same. Talking about the atmospheric conditions ect...?

Which Scientists say that the Earth is always the same ?, the physical laws governing the Earth have always been the same but no respected scientist wouls say that it had never changed.

Atmospheric conditions have changed dramatically from an early primarily CO2 atmospere to the current N2/O2 atmosphere, well known and accepted by scientists.

OK with me.

No scientist has believed that for over 100 years, and the smart ones go back 200 years or more.

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

Good day, Thank you.

Do you think there could be a possibility that there was a water canopy of some sort around the earth? It says this in the bible, that is why people got so big and the animals too, because of the increased air preasure. Also, UV will be filtered by the canopy, that would explain why they lived as long?

Water could not exist in liquid form, only as H20 vapour where the thermal and kinetic gas pressure allows the gas to stay in the air against the force of gravity,

Liquid water could not exist in the atmosphere to any great extent (if it could why are oceans not in the sky now, if th atmosphere has not changed ??), thats why rain falls down.

Theres no evidence for long life recorded anywhere except the bible, where's the other evidence for it ??

Could it not have been ice that is kept in place by the meisner (sp) effect? The evidence is as good a guess as anyone's. About the long lives... Just specutaling about the Bible's science a little.

The Meisner field is related to superconductivity and requires a temperature somewhere around the -200K mark from the quick look up Ive just gave it, I also believe the effect only applies over reasonably small distances

Iam sure you can agree that -200K is a little bit on the chilly side..

IMHO, The bible science is very weak in many,many places; using it as science is a bit like picking up a Tolkein book and declaring it as evidence that Orks and Ents exist.

Indeed, -200k is a bit chilli... lol... I know using the Bible for scientific facts would not be a proper use, but still, there are some information contained that could prove very useful for a starting point in research since it does contain some information about the earlier state the earth was in?

The Meisner effect is due to a material being a superconductor, not directly on a material's temperature.

Some materials are superconductors at much higher temperatures than others. Some superconduct at about the temperature of liquid helium (~ 4^oK), some can superconduct at temperatures warmer than liquid nitrogen (77^oK).

K = Kelvin. Temperatures measured in K are always positive. 0^o K is absolute zero.

I suspect you were thinking Celcius. 0^oC = 273.15^oK. -200^oC is about the temperature of liquid nitrogen.

The Bible is maybe a good starting point for archeological investigations, however much of it was authored from 100 BCE to 50 CE, which is only 2000 years ago, so it will not be able to say much about the 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history regarding varying climate, atmosphere, flora, fauna and geology over this enormous period.

__________________
The Heavens Declare the Glory of Mathematics

Meissner effect: I see, the tempteratures is a definite problem, as well as the conductor. Thanks for the information, much obliged...

Bible starting point.
Considering what you said, the only problem is time, or our perception of it.

Here is a link describing some of the problems with a