Skip to comments.Star Goes Rogue in Untimely Collision
Posted on 11/18/2009 2:09:06 PM PST by LibWhacker
It's a solid doomsday prediction that in about 5 billion years the dying sun will expand as a bloated red giant and engulf the Earth.
But imagine if in just a few weeks the middle-aged sun suddenly ballooned out to the orbit of Saturn and immediately vaporized Earth and most of the other planets in the solar system! And, even before this happened, imagine that every morning you awoke the sun was ever more sweltering until it began evaporating the oceans, spontaneously starting forests ablaze, and melting asphalt!
This sounds like the stuff of a far-out science fiction movie. But astronomers think that they actually witnessed such an even in 2002. A sun-like star on the edge of our galaxy abruptly grew 600,000 times brighter in a few weeks and ballooned 1,000 times its diameter. Alien astronomers on neighboring galaxies would have dutifully noted it as it briefly becoming one of the brightest stars in our Milky Way galaxy.
Now, eight years later astronomers remain puzzled as to what happened to the star, called V838 Monocerotis, and are still doing interstellar forensic detective work.
The blast was not a supernova -- the explosive death of a massive star -- because a red giant is now in the location of the outburst. The event was too powerful to be a nova, where a white dwarf companion to a giant star explodes.
The brilliant hiccup of light from the flashbulb-like outburst continues reverberating off interstellar dust clouds. This light echo has been photo documented by the Hubble Space Telescope as one of the most bizarre faster-than-light illusions ever seen in space.
The dilemma has been to explain how a star can go rogue -- or rather go rouge -- almost literally overnight.
Things have gotten only stranger. A team has just published their observations of X-rays coming from the red giant star. Red giants are cool stars and dont emit X-rays. To do so they would have to spin rapidly and have entangled magnetic fields. The loopy fields would entrap gas, heat it to millions of degrees, and then snap like rubber bands to emit titanic stellar flares.
But the spin rate of a red giant should be slow. By swelling in size the rotational rate slows down to conserve angular momentum, like a twirling figure skater extending their arms to de-spin. A rapidly spinning red giant could be forensic evidence for a stellar head on collision that preceded the outburst.
The idea being kicked around is that V838 Mon. was originally a triple-star system. A gravitational billiard game among the three stars sent two of them careening together and explosively merge into a single star. The heat from the impact caused the new star to swell up, like a runaway hot air balloon. This is supported by the observation that a few weeks after the initial burst, the stars suddenly got an additional 1,000 times brighter in just on day. This might have been from the nuclear cores of the stars merging.
There is a stellar companion that could be the culprit that stated the mess. It was observed as a hot blue star in the vicinity of the precursor star to the red giant. But it mysteriously vanished after the blast. The belief is that it was engulfed in a cloud of dust blown out by the collision and is hidden from view for now.
Thankfully, V838 Mon is only a few million years old and dwells in a young open stars cluster. So it is not old enough for life as we know it to have arisen and evolved.
But imagine the terror and gloom of living under a planet-wide death sentence by knowing the exact time your entire world and planetary system was going to go up in smoke!
Like a “fully mature” Earth with the fossilized remains of apparently millions of years old creatures?
A “fully mature” Earth with the geological record of long ages of the Earth that never happened?
The light from this star is not just “remnants of things long dead” it is a visual record of a “death” from before anything supposedly existed.
“Our Mr. Sun” complete video (directed by Frank Capra!):
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·|
|Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·|
Indeed. My first thought as well. "Palin star" has a nice ring to it.
1) Are you a Christian?
2) Is the Bible the word of God?
3) Is the Bible inerrant?
4) Is Genesis history?
If you have read material like http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible, what do you think of it?
They’ve found T-rex bones with blood cells still in them.
But it is unlikely that you would know any actual science if you rely upon creationist sources, they must misrepresent science as a necessity.
Questions once again:
1) Are you a Christian?
2) Is the Bible the word of God?
3) Is the Bible inerrant?
4) Is Genesis history?
Do you consider the Pope a Christian? Do you think acceptance of a scientific theory precludes one from being a Christian?
Do you think the Pope thinks the Bible is the word of God? Do you think someone must interpret the Bible exactly as you do for them to believe in the Bible? Do you think the are of the Earth is a salvational issue? Do you think it is OK to lie about what was actually found in fossils?
“there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such. Pope Benedict XVI
I said, “Theyve found T-rex bones with blood cells still in them.”
You said in reply, “That is not true. They found fossilized remains of their structure and remnants of their soft tissue structure and protein remnants.”
I thank you, Freeper allmendream, because you forced me to dig up what I had read originally. Here’s the link from 2005 ...
... with a follow-up from 2006 ...
... where a creationist scientist Dr. Menton talks about what *appear* to be red-blood cells under a microscope. Dr. Schweitzer the old-earth scientist, made the same observation.
There is also a follow-up from 2007 ...
The money quote here is the report that the non-creationist, “Dr. Schweitzer has reported that the protein collagen has been recovered from her T. rex soft tissue specimen.”
I am not a scientist. If you have more recent information than this regarding the latest on this find, I would love to see it. I don’t stay on the cutting edge of what’s going on in paleontology.
To answer your questions:
A) Pope, if trusting Jesus, and knows Jesus, and the outgrowth of this faith and relationships are the good works prepared for him, is a Christian. I don’t know the man’s heart. I can cite scripture to back up everything if you need me to.
B) No. So long as the scientific theory does not contradict what the Bible teaches, no, acceptance of that scientific theory does not preclude one from being a Christian. But the Bible does teach to be wary of oppositions of science that are not science.
C) If the Pope teaches or believes things that oppose the Bible, then no, he does not believe the Bible is the Word of God.
D) I don’t interpret the Bible perfectly, so no, I am not the standard for measuring the Bible.
E) “Do you think the are of the Earth is a salvational issue?” I don’t understand this. Try again Sir please.
F) I do not think it is OK, even if I made the comment in good faith. But, please Sir, tell me of the observations made since I read the aforementioned links, that show that the latest consensus understanding since 2
G) Regarding the Pope quote: There are plenty of Bible verses I could list for a literal 6 days of creation. The evolutionary narrative for the origin of the earth contradicts the narrative of Genesis in many ways. If the Pope is speaking of micro evolution, then that is true, in that Chihuahuas are the same species as St. Bernards, and you could selectively breed them into each other. If he is speaking macro evolution where species A turns into species B lizard—>duck, then no, I dis-agree. God made them all as narrated in Genesis.
Three more questions for you, adding to the four you have not yet answered ...
5) What would you do with evidence for a young world? Would you admit error?
6) The evidence at http://www.direct.ca/trinity/y3nf.html compels me to believe the Bible is the word of God. I have not yet seen a response that did not consist of anything better than “Handwaving” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving) after an admission that the math works. What’s your take?
7) Since you are human, you have lied, hated, lusted, stolen just like every man, and are thus guilty on judgment day before a God that will send you to eternal hellfire for your crimes, or to heaven because you believed in and followed Christ. Are you prepared for this day?
The scientists (Schweitzer) who is doing this is not a young Earth creationist and thinks the fossilization, while amazingly well preserved in microstructure of soft tissue, is consistent with it being millions of years old.
As I stated, they found remains of the STRUCTURE of blood cells; pretty amazing; but they did not find “T-rex bones with blood cells still in them”; they found a fossilized remains of a T-rex bone (a fossil is made up of mineral not bone) that had the STRUCTURE of blood cells preserved within it (as well as some protein sequences (collagen)still intact).
If the evidence from independent lines of investigation all derived young ages for the Earth I would be accepting of it. But it does not. Geology, Paleontology, Archeology, Astronomy, and Biology (among many other scientific disciplines) all give evidence of a VERY OLD Earth and Universe.
I believe the Bible is the word of God. As does the Pope. We both accept the evidence for the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation. If you are handing out blanket condemnations to Hell based upon acceptance of evolution, then I am in good company.
I ask forgiveness for my sins in the name of Jesus the Christ, THAT is the criteria for salvation given in the Bible; nothing about how long you think it took and what processes were used when God created the Universe.
You cannot rely upon evolutionist sources. They misrepresent science out of necessity.
Could you point me to perhaps a debate between a young earth creationist and an evolutionist, where the evolution wins handily in the name of “reason” or “logic” or “science”?
>they found a fossilized remains of a T-rex bone (a fossil
>is made up of mineral not bone) that had the STRUCTURE of
>blood cells preserved within it (as well as some protein
>sequences (collagen)still intact).
Money quote from the first link I gave you is, “The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.” Sound like much more than “some protein sequences.”
>I believe the Bible is the word of God. As does the Pope.
>We both accept the evidence for the theory of evolution
>through natural selection of genetic variation.
Here’s my proof for a young earth and a literal 6 days of creation. I don’t need to be a scientist to do this:
1) The Bible is the Word of God, please see http://www.direct.ca/trinity/y3nf.html for the evidence.
2) The Genesis narrative contradicts the evolution narrative.
Bible: God is the creator of all things. (Genesis 1)
Evolution: Natural chance processes can account for the existence of all things.
Bible: World created as is in six literal days. (Genesis 1)
Evolution: World evolved over billions of years.
Bible: Creation is completed. (Genesis 2:3)
Evolution: Creative processes continuing.
Bible: Oceans before land. (Genesis 1:2)
Evolution: Land before oceans.
Bible: First life on land. (Genesis 1:11)
Evolution: Life began in the oceans.
Bible: First life was land plants. (Genesis 1:11)
Evolution: Marine organisms evolved first.
Bible: Earth before sun and stars. (Genesis 1:14-19)
Evolution: Sun and stars before earth.
Bible: Fruit trees before fish. (Genesis 1:11,20,21)
Evolution: Fish before fruit trees.
Bible: All stars made on fourth day. (Genesis 1:16)
Evolution: Stars evolved at various times.
Bible: Birds and fish created on the fifth day. (Genesis 1:20-21)
Evolution: Fish evolved hundreds of millions of years before birds.
Bible: Birds before insects. (Genesis 1:20-31, Leviticus 11)
Evolution: Insects before birds.
Bible: Whales before reptiles. (Genesis 1:20-31)
Evolution: Reptiles before whales.
Bible: Birds before reptiles. (Genesis 1:20-31)
Evolution: Reptiles before birds.
Bible: Light before the sun. (Genesis 1:3-9)
Evolution: Sun before any light.
Bible: Plants before the sun. (Genesis 1:11-19)
Evolution: Sun before any plants.
Bible: Abundance and variety of marine life all at once. (Genesis 1:20)
Evolution: Marine life gradually developed from a primitive organic soup.
Bible: Man’s body from the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7)
Evolution: Man and monkey have a common ancestor.
Bible: Man exercised dominion over all organisms. (Genesis 1:28)
Evolution: Many organisms extinct before man evolved.
Bible: Man originally a vegetarian. (Genesis 1:29)
Evolution: Man originally a meat-eater.
Bible: Fixed and distinct kinds of life (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25)
Evolution: All life is in a continual state of change.
Bible: Death caused by Eve and Adam eating the forbidden fruit. (Genesis 2:17)
Evolution: Death existed long before the evolution of man.
3) Therefore, the evolutionary narrative is fundamentally opposed to the Genesis narrative. Whether it took billions of years or 6 days, is just one of many, many differences. It is completely different.
4) I believe God, and not man per Romans 3:4
>I ask forgiveness for my sins in the name of Jesus the
>Christ, THAT is the criteria for salvation given in the
>Bible; nothing about how long you think it took and what
>processes were used when God created the Universe.
May you be forgiven.
May I be forgiven.
May we rejoice together in the Kingdom of the Father.
I encourage you humble yourself before Scripture, and believe it, and not your intellect, and not the Pope.
“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
Do you accept Global Warming as true? Many of the evolutionists think it is the truth. If so, have you read Jeremiah 5:22?
But if you rely upon creationist sources be prepared to be misinformed and sound like a fool who doesn't know what he is talking about.
It is once again creationist sources that misrepresent science out of necessity.
The “debate” is settled every time a company hires a SCIENTISTS who understand the age of the Earth and evolution to do geology and biomedical research. Science produces results. Creation “science” produces nothing but a ‘critique’ of science.
Where did you cut and paste that from?
>The debate is settled every time a company hires a
>SCIENTISTS who understand the age of the Earth and
>evolution to do geology and biomedical research. Science
>produces results. Creation science produces nothing but
>a critique of science.
Your comparison of laboratory science to creation science is disingenuous. A small part of Origins Science is staring at bones and trying to figure out where they belong in the family of animals. Laboratory Science is using the scientific method to prove things. A small part of Creation Science is staring at bones and trying to figure our what God created them to be.
You should compare Origins Science to Creation Science. Both are useless for scientific advances, and are only for debates like this.
Laboratory Science gives us results.
“avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”
1 Timothy six verse twenty
Origins Science masquerading as and comparing itself favorably to Laboratory Science rather than Creation Science is “science falsely so called” in it’s purest form. Atheist evolutionists do this all the time in the name of “science” against “God”.
I will make a list of all the handwaving you engaged in, just in case you missed it:
1) not “some protein sequences” but actual collagen per one of the links I already gave
2) the Biblical/historical proof for evolution being contradictory to Genesis, and thus not something Christians should ever approve of or promote in any way shape or form
3) no response to Jeremiah speaking against oceans rising as a result of anything, to say nothing of global warming
4) You say I “sound like a fool” but offer no evidence of an evolutionist soundly defeating a creationist in actual debate. When did it happen?
5) Lastly, Dr. Schweitzer the non creationist said, it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldnt believe it. The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”
See how she said, “how could blood cells survive that long” and that “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone”.
You said, “You said blood cells inside T-rex bone. Nothing can support that assertion.”
I just gave you a nice long non creationist quote, certifying it’s not “nothing.”
Now’s your chance to actually CITE A SOURCE newer than http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0306AAAS.asp to show my error, and avoid insults in your reply, like the adult you are.
Have a nice day!
Scientists base their understanding of biology and the Earth on the theories of great age. When drilling for oil or looking for medicines, people hire scientists who understand that the Earth is not six thousand years old. It is not disingenuous to show that in the FREE MARKET OF IDEAS one has clearly surpassed the other.
Here is Dr. Schweitzer explaining that it was NOT blood cells, but blood cell structure. It was also not T-rex bone, but the mineralized fossil of a T-rex bone.
: It looks as if the T. rex may have nucleated red cells. Is this so?
Judith Chester, Santa Fe, New Mexico
A: Well, there are small, red structures within the vessels that look like nucleated red cells. So on the surface, this is a case of “if it looks like a duck .” But after 70 million years, just because something looks familiar doesn't mean that that is what it is. The fossil record can mimic many things, so without doing the chemistry to show that there are similarities to blood cells at the molecular level, I do not make any claims that they are cells.
However, we do know that, except for mammals, all living vertebrates (fish, frogs, birds, and reptiles) have nucleated red blood cells in circulation. Mammals are unique in having their blood cells “spit out” the nucleus before they go into circulation (unless there is a disease). So, because dinosaurs’ closest relatives are crocodiles and birds, it makes sense that their blood cells would have been nucleated.
Dr. Schweitzers learned opinion on this nonsense about a young Earth.....
Actually, my work doesn’t say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.
>So where DID you cut and past all that from? I noticed you
>didn’t answer, did you type all that yourself?
Thought it was a rhetorical question. www.answersingenesis.com where they have creationist scientists with advanced science degrees, unlike me. Also they have something atheists don’t have: A healthy fear of God. Do you have an advanced science degree?
>Scientists base their understanding of biology and the
>Earth on the theories of great age. When drilling for oil
>or looking for medicines, people hire scientists who
>understand that the Earth is not six thousand years old.
Total Red Herring: Whether the earth is 6 thousand or 5 billion years old, is a question for Origins Science and Creation Scientists, and has nothing to do with the Laboratory Science needed to do the jobs scientists are hired for.
>It is not disingenuous to show that in the FREE MARKET OF
>IDEAS one has clearly surpassed the other.
Jesus said that WIDE and BROAD is the way to destruction, and many go in that way. That the “free market” of ideas would reflect this by pushing Evolution against the testimony of Genesis (the word of God) as I have already demonstrated, is no surprise.
>Dr. Schweitzers learned opinion on this nonsense about a
Nonsense eh? So where is your logical, fact filled, rigorous case for why I was mistaken in that three step case for why the Evolutionary narrative I posted before is opposed to the clear testimony of Genesis? Is that forthcoming anytime soon? I don’t care what you, the Pope, or a fleet of Laboratory Scientists think. I care what God thinks, and so far, I don’t see why I should believe anything else.
>Here is Dr. Schweitzer explaining that it was NOT blood
>cells, but blood cell structure. It was also not T-rex
>bone, but the mineralized fossil of a T-rex bone.
PBS. No fear of God. No reason they won’t tuck tail at any evidence for a young earth. Nevertheless let’s examine the question asked, and what was answered.
1) Dr. Schweitzer was asked if NUCLEATED red blood cells were discovered in the T.Rex specimen.
2) She says they look nucleated, answering the question.
3) She says they have NOT run chemical tests on them to know whether they are blood cells or not, thus not answering the exact question asked.
4) She’s guessing that they might be nucleated based on the fact that only mammals have nucleated cells.
The whole crux of the question asked whose answer you quoted is whether they were nucleated red blood cells, or not. She spent half her answer regarding whether they were nucleated or not, and the other half on whether they were blood cells or not. In any case, she’s holding off until chemical testing is done.
Here’s the original question to the answer you posted:
>Q: It looks as if the T. rex may have nucleated red cells.
>Is this so?
Have a great day. I hope your time in the Bible is fruitful and happy and edifying in the faith.
Yes, I have an advanced degree in Molecular Biology. I am a laboratory scientist who produces results based upon my understanding of biology informed by evolution and common descent of species, as well as my understanding of God and his glory.
Being a scientist is not synonymous with being an atheist,and rejection of your young Earth creationism doesn’t make one an atheist either - but nice red herring, the boogeyman of atheists, as if the mere fact that there are atheists discounts the opinions and work of the many thousands of scientists who are, like me, people of faith in Jesus Christ our Lord.
My knowledge of evolution has, contrary to your assertion otherwise, contributed to my knowledge in laboratory science. As would an understanding of the the actual ages of the Earth for a geologist exploring for resources.
The free marked of ideas did not reject your young Earth creationism because society is ungodly; but because your YE creationism produces no results.
Do I have to repeat again how wrong you are about ‘blood cells in T rex bone’? The scientist herself saying that the claim was unsubstantiated isn’t a “logical, fact filled, rigorous case”? Delusional.
And it is mammals who do NOT have nucleated blood cells, you got it mixed up. Dinosaurs wouldn’t be expected to share that trait, and apparently, from the preserved STRUCTURE (not actual cells) of red blood cells (if that is what it is, and it looks like it is)they may have had nucleated blood cells.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.