Did you even read those sites yourself? They are the biggest crap I ever seen.
-Where did the gas come from?
*Nobody knows, where did God come from? Same question. Nobody knows the answer, so why do you bother to ask it?
-How could random gas movements produce stars and galaxies?
*Random? Says who? There were gravitational forces, electrical fields, magnetic fields, and who knows what more. What is so random about that?
-The birth of a star has never been observed.
*Duh.. You know how long it takes for a star to form, with the theories i gave you from NASA? Many, many years. It takes so long, that we cannot observe it happening. We have observed stars on their way to being born though. See the picture i gave earlier.
-It is not possible for loose, free-floating hydrogen to push itself into even one star
*I'll just say it one more time. Gravitational forces.
-A star (super-nova) explosion would blow everything outward
*Very true. But there are no explosions needed to form stars since we have the wonderful thing called gravitational forces.
-Stars are too far apart for even combined explosions to push gas into more new stars
*Jee, it turned out to be very convient for those so-called scientists to forget about gravitational forces.
-There is not enough evolutionary time for the stars to be formed.
*I didn't know there was a time limit for evolution?
-There is a universal law requiring star degeneration, not star formation. It is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics
* Well, we been over that haven't we? The second law does not state that everything degrades, it states that everything will degrade if there are no other forces delaying or reversing that process.
-Explosions could not produce what we find in the skies
*Why not? And even if they couldn't, there is the thing called nuclear fusion. Creating various heavy elements along the way. Almost everything could be made by that, and with a supernova blown into the cosmos.
-The theory does not explain the working of gravity
*And why would that prove it is wrong?
-The theory requires that stars are fueled (shine) by hydrogen explosions, but that cannot be true since not enough neutrinos (subatomic antimatter) are formed
*Ow this one is totally crap. No, they don't shine by exploding hydrogen. They shine because hydrogen is fused to helium. Neutrino's are not antimatter. Neutrino's are neutral, what a surprise if you look at the name. Neutrino's have nothing to do with nuclear reactions, just that they are formed with nuclear fusion. What a crap, and you believe this?
-Evolutionists dare not accept the truth of the missing neutrinos
*Missing neutrino's? Ow that is new to me. I do know that neutrino's are hard to spot since they are so small and electrically neutral.
-Stars shine because of solar collapse, not hydrogen explosions.
*Yeah, that was the idea anyway wasn't it? Nebulars contracting till stars till there is enough pressure and heat to start the fusion reactions. Nothing explodes, sorry. Where did that nonsense come from? Is this refuting based on 100 year old theories orso?
Do I need to go on?
So I think now it safe to turn the score board back to a 1-0 for the Evolutionists.