Author Topic: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.  (Read 2927 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #58 on: December 30, 2011, 11:18:13 PM »
You are all getting away from my original questions, which no one has answered.  Bottom line, is the universe the same age?"

 The same age as what? The universe is singular meaning one. We have just one universe that we live in. As for the parts of the universe, you were already answered: no, all the parts of the universe are not the exact same age. (Depending upon your personal definition of age which you may spring upon us in your reply if doing so allows you to manufacture a supposed rebuttal.)

You state: "no, all the parts of the universe are not the exact same age."  How can that be?  You misunderstood my question.  If the Big Bang happened like an explosion (which all [or at least most] scientists agree) then how is one part of the universe not the same age as the other?  If I'm a twin, can my twin be a different age than me?

Okay, try this question again but do not use the words: 'parts', 'things', or any other vague term. Name what you asking about.

Where it was dense enough, the energy that makes up the universe has collapsed into particles (matter). While much of that matter was created at the start of the universe, not all of it was. And some matter has ended up as energy again. When energy is concentrated enough it collapses into particles. So, not all the particles are the same age.


My question is now!  I remember being taught that stars billions of years older than ours become red giants and swallow up their surrounding planets.  Huh?  Aren't all stars the same age?  Are the ones further out older (how) than our sun? 

Imagine you are on an island and the first settlers used all the trees to make their homes. You want to make your own home because all the homes still standing are occupied. But other old homes have collapsed so you go to the nearest one and use its parts to make your home.

Next stage: understand that this is an analogy and no one is building anything – it all occurs via natural processes. Last stage (barring a lack of understanding on your part): replace the 'island' with universe and 'homes' with stars.
So using your island analogy, the islands were populated, abandoned, and repopulated over the course of billions of years?  Who were the first settlers?  Can not we be them?

Move on to the portion that says "Next stage". Oh, forget the island since you don't understand analogies or instructions.

When the first stars got old they exploded. Eventually gravity brought the remains together in a new, different configuration. Because much of the remains was hydrogen and helium a new star formed and the heavier elements formed planets. Repeat the process and you get third generation stars of which our sun is one.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #59 on: December 30, 2011, 11:24:03 PM »
The Scientific Method is observable...neither creation or [BBT + evolution] is observable.  Evidence found in the fossil record supports a young earth theory just as much, if not more, than an old earth theory.  Sorry if I caused some confusion.

There is no evidence in the fossil record that supports a young earth proposal – especially if you are referring to the "great flood". I'd explain how to demonstrate it for yourself but you've just shown that you are terrible at understanding and following instructions so there's no point in that.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #60 on: December 30, 2011, 11:28:19 PM »
I am smart in some ways. I am not a genius. Here are my best answers.

Quotes may be snipped for focus
This is the theory general relativity was supposed to disprove.  So you disagree with Einstein?
 

Your statement and question make no sense.

Read my Wiki post.  Scientists don't know for sure.  They are still looking.  But!!!!  It couldn't have been created, it's not scientific!  The conundrum I'm dealing with here.

There is not conundrum; there is only confusion on your part like many theists.
Scientists are people. People like to be right and to prove others wrong. Even if you theists stopped muddying things up, scientists would continue to search for answers and question each other's work. Which is good because that helps weed out those who try to hoodwink others – like the cold fusion guys a few years ago. Science calls for careful experimentation and repeatable results.

So is it a theory, albeit the best one?  We need to define proof vs. theory vs. 1+1=1, or whatever (drop argument [another post]).  Which, if my study of scientific history reflects, the scientific method was postulated for a reason?

Proof. (shakes head sadly) Proof rarely exists in real life. If we convicted people only when we had the level of proof most theists require then almost no one would be in jail. If information for textbooks was limited by the  proof most theists require, most textbooks would be the size of a pamphlet.

We have an amazing body of knowledge (called science) that informs us as to how the world works. It is not perfect but it does work. And when someone deduces/discovers better information/model/principle we add that – or replace if we had an older less accurate version.

How do you not understand this?

For us to survive on earth, we need all the "evolved" species.  The observational evidence of the exoplanets are that they are either to big (a gas ball) or too small (an inferno).

The earth is teeming with life!  Are the exoplanets?
 

We don't know yet. Our technology doesn't allow us to make that evaluation – yet.

Sooooo, the Big bang was observed?  Please, please, re-read you own post.

If you find behind a door, a person dead with a big hole in one side of their body and a small hole in the other side and a similar small hole in the door, can you figure out what happened?

You take evidence and work from there. That is how we 'know' about the Big Bang.

You are all getting away from my original questions, which no one has answered.  Bottom line, is the universe the same age?"

 The same age as what? The universe is singular meaning one. We have just one universe that we live in. As for the parts of the universe, you were already answered: no, all the parts of the universe are not the exact same age. (Depending upon your personal definition of age which you may spring upon us in your reply if doing so allows you to manufacture a supposed rebuttal.)

My question is now!  I remember being taught that stars billions of years older than ours become red giants and swallow up their surrounding planets.  Huh?  Aren't all stars the same age?  Are the ones further out older (how) than our sun? 

That's why I addressed this to geniuses.  HELP?

Imagine you are on an island and the first settlers used all the trees to make their homes. You want to make your own home because all the homes still standing are occupied. But other old homes have collapsed so you go to the nearest one and use its parts to make your home.

Next stage: understand that this is an analogy and no one is building anything – it all occurs via natural processes. Last stage (barring a lack of understanding on your part): replace the 'island' with universe and 'homes' with stars.

OK, so theists aren't people?  The different disciplines of Christianity aren't constantly sharpening each other?  Calvinism vs. Arminiunism?  People do like to be right, that's why believers succumb to the truth that they are wrong and God (Bible) is right.   I believe it's the smart people who have muddied things up!  Us knuckle dragging, NASCAR fan, Bible thumping, turnip truck drivers who just go to work and pay our taxes.  It's you geniuses that have all the answers and know how we should live and what we should believe that "muddied" things up.

Proof!!  Keep shaking your head!!!!!!  Where is the proof of BBT or evolution?  It's the exact same proof we use for a young earth.  And if you take a seriously objective look at the evidence, you'd have to agree the earth and our solar system has to be young.  It has to be!

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #61 on: December 30, 2011, 11:30:07 PM »
The Scientific Method is observable...neither creation or [BBT + evolution] is observable.  Evidence found in the fossil record supports a young earth theory just as much, if not more, than an old earth theory.  Sorry if I caused some confusion.

There is no evidence in the fossil record that supports a young earth proposal – especially if you are referring to the "great flood". I'd explain how to demonstrate it for yourself but you've just shown that you are terrible at understanding and following instructions so there's no point in that.

Before I respond, research your guy Derek Ager on Wiki or whatever.  Last we knew, he died an atheist.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #62 on: December 30, 2011, 11:37:22 PM »
You guys really need to go out and visit web sites discussing your evidence for an old earth in regards to the evidence really demonstrating a young earth. 

I don't know how you can continue to argue and old earth even from a scientific perspective.  Even your guys (atheists) can't respond other than " there can't be a creator". 

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12452
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #63 on: December 30, 2011, 11:49:08 PM »
Jtp, I for one have done better than going out to visit websites on the topic.  I have a university education in geology.  I'm currently doing a thesis on a granite intrusion dated at 1.06 billion years old.[1]  This age coincides with what would be expected from its context:  The neighbouring, more deformed granite intrusions are older, and the age of peak regional metamorphism for my part of the Grenville province predates my granite's age by a good hundred million years or so.  So that makes sense.

What also makes sense is that the baked limestone (marble) that makes up the country rock was deposited before that happened.  And that a lot of uplift had to occur before the area was eroded down to reveal the roots of the granite intrusions.

All this sort of stuff is what we geoscientists do in order to bring you such wonderful things as nuclear energy.  If assuming a young Earth led to more accurate models of, say, granitic uranium mineralization, then that assumption would be used, because there's money in it.  But it doesn't.  Why doesn't it, jtp?
 1. In case you wish to actually read up on how this was done:  http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/GSC-CGC/M44-2000/M44-2000-F5E.pdf
« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 11:55:02 PM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #64 on: December 30, 2011, 11:52:52 PM »
You are all getting away from my original questions, which no one has answered.  Bottom line, is the universe the same age?"

 The same age as what? The universe is singular meaning one. We have just one universe that we live in. As for the parts of the universe, you were already answered: no, all the parts of the universe are not the exact same age. (Depending upon your personal definition of age which you may spring upon us in your reply if doing so allows you to manufacture a supposed rebuttal.)

You state: "no, all the parts of the universe are not the exact same age."  How can that be?  You misunderstood my question.  If the Big Bang happened like an explosion (which all [or at least most] scientists agree) then how is one part of the universe not the same age as the other?  If I'm a twin, can my twin be a different age than me?

Okay, try this question again but do not use the words: 'parts', 'things', or any other vague term. Name what you asking about.

Where it was dense enough, the energy that makes up the universe has collapsed into particles (matter). While much of that matter was created at the start of the universe, not all of it was. And some matter has ended up as energy again. When energy is concentrated enough it collapses into particles. So, not all the particles are the same age.


My question is now!  I remember being taught that stars billions of years older than ours become red giants and swallow up their surrounding planets.  Huh?  Aren't all stars the same age?  Are the ones further out older (how) than our sun? 

Imagine you are on an island and the first settlers used all the trees to make their homes. You want to make your own home because all the homes still standing are occupied. But other old homes have collapsed so you go to the nearest one and use its parts to make your home.

Next stage: understand that this is an analogy and no one is building anything – it all occurs via natural processes. Last stage (barring a lack of understanding on your part): replace the 'island' with universe and 'homes' with stars.
So using your island analogy, the islands were populated, abandoned, and repopulated over the course of billions of years?  Who were the first settlers?  Can not we be them?

Move on to the portion that says "Next stage". Oh, forget the island since you don't understand analogies or instructions.

When the first stars got old they exploded. Eventually gravity brought the remains together in a new, different configuration. Because much of the remains was hydrogen and helium a new star formed and the heavier elements formed planets. Repeat the process and you get third generation stars of which our sun is one.

I go back to long ago posts, the heat of compression trumps gravity (your new stars and generational planets from old star stuff theory).  For your theory to work, the physics of the universe had to be different up to about 6000 years ago. 

For your side it doesn't matter, science is what it needs to be.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #65 on: December 31, 2011, 12:06:19 AM »
Jtp, I for one have done better than going out to visit websites on the topic.  I have a university education in geology.  I'm currently doing a thesis on a granite intrusion dated at .[1]  This age coincides with what would be expected from its context:  The neighbouring, more deformed granite intrusions are older, and the age of peak regional metamorphism for my part of the Grenville province predates my granite's age by a good hundred million years or so.  So that makes sense.

What also makes sense is that the baked limestone (marble) that makes up the country rock was deposited before that happened.  And that a lot of uplift had to occur before the area was eroded down to reveal the roots of the granite intrusions.

All this sort of stuff is what we geoscientists do in order to bring you such wonderful things as nuclear energy.  If assuming a young Earth led to more accurate models of, say, granitic uranium mineralization, then that assumption would be used, because there's money in it.  But it doesn't.  Why doesn't it, jtp?
 1. In case you wish to actually read up on how this was done:  http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/GSC-CGC/M44-2000/M44-2000-F5E.pdf

And this is consistent throughout the globe?  That is, all granite intrusions are 1.06 billion years old?  Or just the ones you are studying?  What country do you refer to?  Are all deposits rich in nuclear energy?  Why are some preferred over others (economically of course)?  And why is that?  Are parts of our globe older than others?  Are these deposits you are studying consistent on the sphere?  Why is it that when the 3rd generation star stuff decided to form a globe was it distributed non-uniformly?

By no means am I a geologist.  Just asking.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6624
  • Darwins +792/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #66 on: December 31, 2011, 12:07:11 AM »
Proof!!  Keep shaking your head!!!!!!  Where is the proof of BBT or evolution?  It's the exact same proof we use for a young earth.  And if you take a seriously objective look at the evidence, you'd have to agree the earth and our solar system has to be young.  It has to be!

It has to be? Are you saying that because there is no other explanation or because that is the result required for you to be comfortable in your beliefs?

Young earth? How do you interpret the many layers of fossils, always in the same order, found throughout the world? How do you explain that there are some fossils that are only found in two places in the world. In relatively limited areas on the east coast of South America and on the west coast of the African continent. In exactly the spots where the two continents were clearly attached hundreds of milliions of years ago. What other explanation can there be for such facts? The thousands and thousands of layers of rock. The hundreds of thousands of layers of ice in Antarctic and Greenland ice fields. A moon that circles us without an atmosphere that is covered, and I mean covered, by millions of craters caused by meteors and asteroids and comets. Seen it hit lately? Does the moon get hit by large flying rocks on a regular basis? If the earth and moon are only 6,000 years old, why weren't your biblical buddies mentioning all the huge explosions on the moon? You would think someone would have brought it up.

If they happened for the most part long before humans were able to survive on the planet, then not much would happen in the timespan of our species. The reason the two didn't coexist is because when the moon was getting peppered, so to was the earth, and it was sort of hard to survive so many flying rocks.

There are trees in the mountains of California that are 5,000 years old. There are other colonies of trees that have been shown to be 80,000 years old, but not the individual trees, so I won't ask you to believe those numbers. Tree rings don't lie, though.

Archaeologists in the US are finding evidence of human habitation over 10,000 years old, and this is the last part of the world settled. Why would there be evidence of campsites all over the country buried 10 and 12 and 14 feet deep. How did they get so deep. We're not talking towns and villages, just campsites.

When was the ice age? The evidence for huge glaciers covering the northern areas of America, Europe and Asia are beyond dispute. Yet there is no mention in the bible of such events. Colder than crap and Moses doesn't complain? Is that how Jesus walked on water. It was ice? No, the glaciers didn't go that far south, but I'm guessing the weather was a bit different for awhile. And if the glaciers were in Europe during early biblical times, why are there archaeological ruins ten thousand years old and more in northern europe? (and you can't go around saying hey look, archaeologists have found ruins of a city that was mentioned in the bible, so it must be true, and then poo-poo other archaeological finds that don't match your little tale).

The current count of 300 sextillion stars in the universe (spread across at least 100,000,000,000 galaxies), are completely consistent with the big bang. And sort of a strange thing for god to do if earth gets equal billing, as in "In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth". The need for 299,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 extra stars was what?

What science has is consistency. Geology agrees with paleontology which agree with chemistry which matches up well with biology. We also have the aforementioned archaeology and other sciences who find collaborating evidence for a much, much older planet and a much much older universe than the one you hope we have. We have medical researchers today using the principals of evolution to create new medicines. And there are succeeding. If evolution is bunk, why does it work?

We have way too much information confirming our assumptions for you to be able to dismiss them with the phrase "It has to be". You're gonna need to provide a lot more than mere desperation to get us to consider your side of the argument.

If you can provide objective interpretations of evidence, do so. But until then, just claiming you have some won't cut it around here or anywhere else.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12452
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #67 on: December 31, 2011, 12:11:25 AM »
And this is consistent throughout the globe?  That is, all granite intrusions are 1.06 billion years old?  Or just the ones you are studying?  What country do you refer to?  Are all deposits rich in nuclear energy?  Why are some preferred over others (economically of course)?  And why is that?  Are parts of our globe older than others?  Are these deposits you are studying consistent on the sphere?  Why is it that when the 3rd generation star stuff decided to form a globe was it distributed non-uniformly?

By no means am I a geologist.  Just asking.

I answered several of those questions in the post you replied to.  Before I answer the rest, I would like to know that you're actually going to read the answers, you not having read my own previous post in its entirety and all.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #68 on: December 31, 2011, 12:13:55 AM »
Replying to me:
OK, so theists aren't people?  The different disciplines of Christianity aren't constantly sharpening each other?  Calvinism vs. Arminiunism?  People do like to be right, that's why believers succumb to the truth that they are wrong and God (Bible) is right.   I believe it's the smart people who have muddied things up!  Us knuckle dragging, NASCAR fan, Bible thumping, turnip truck drivers who just go to work and pay our taxes.  It's you geniuses that have all the answers and know how we should live and what we should believe that "muddied" things up.

Proof!!  Keep shaking your head!!!!!!  Where is the proof of BBT or evolution?  It's the exact same proof we use for a young earth.  And if you take a seriously objective look at the evidence, you'd have to agree the earth and our solar system has to be young.  It has to be!
Bold & underline mine

Bold: Where did you get this from? Not from what I wrote – that's for sure.

Underline: The proof for BBT & evolution is the exact same one you use for 'young earth'? They are on opposite sides of the issue – the proof of one would refute the other.

I go back to long ago posts, the heat of compression trumps gravity (your new stars and generational planets from old star stuff theory).  For your theory to work, the physics of the universe had to be different up to about 6000 years ago. 

For your side it doesn't matter, science is what it needs to be.

Every statement there is a load of garbage. It vaguely approaches making sense then veers off wildly as if trying to run itself off the road.

For those of you at home, here is a little experiment you can do.    :)
You will need:
2 large glass containers of equal size – I will refer to these as fish tanks below
40 packages of 6-serving jello of various flavors (20 if possible)
20 different kinds of gummi animals: worms, bears, etc.
Sufficient water to make the jello and the proper cooking utensils. Have an adult handy to watch over any stove usage.

If you are in the northern part of the northern hemisphere, this is a good time of year for this.
Split the jello and gummi animals into two equal groups.

Prepare according to the package instructions the first package of jello from group 1. Pour into fish tank and add the first kind of gummi animals. Place somewhere the jello can set (like outside if cold enough).
Once the jello has set, repeat the procedure with the second package and second kind of gummi animals allowing enough time for the jello to set. Continue repeating until you have 20 layers of different flavors of jello with 20 different kinds of gummi animals embedded in them. This is the evolution fish tank.

Group 2 (young earth/great flood)
In a large enough container pour all 20 packages of jello and the appropriate amount of water for all 20 pkgs. Prepare according to the package instructions then pour into the second fish tank. Add all the gummi animals at once. Allow to set.

Compare each fish tank (many layers of the evolution fish tank or one amorphous mass of the young earth/great flood fish tank) with what you can find out in nature. To simulate geological uplift, cut sections out and place them at ineresting angles - get your parents permission as this part could be messy. Have fun.

This can be adjusted to suit the containers, jello flavors and gummi animals available

« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 12:19:20 AM by Samothec »
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #69 on: December 31, 2011, 12:14:25 AM »
Jtp, I for one have done better than going out to visit websites on the topic.  I have a university education in geology.  I'm currently doing a thesis on a granite intrusion dated at 1.06 billion years old.[1]  This age coincides with what would be expected from its context:  The neighbouring, more deformed granite intrusions are older, and the age of peak regional metamorphism for my part of the Grenville province predates my granite's age by a good hundred million years or so.  So that makes sense.

What also makes sense is that the baked limestone (marble) that makes up the country rock was deposited before that happened.  And that a lot of uplift had to occur before the area was eroded down to reveal the roots of the granite intrusions.

All this sort of stuff is what we geoscientists do in order to bring you such wonderful things as nuclear energy.  If assuming a young Earth led to more accurate models of, say, granitic uranium mineralization, then that assumption would be used, because there's money in it.  But it doesn't.  Why doesn't it, jtp?
 1. In case you wish to actually read up on how this was done:  http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/GSC-CGC/M44-2000/M44-2000-F5E.pdf

An aside just for fun.  Is nuclear energy wonderful?  You'll tick off a lot of your fellow atheists if you believe that.  By the way, I'm all for nuclear energy even though I wasn't in the US Navy.  UK Navy has Nuclear subs, too.  Oh yeah.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12452
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #70 on: December 31, 2011, 12:17:03 AM »
An aside just for fun.  Is nuclear energy wonderful?  You'll tick off a lot of your fellow atheists if you believe that.  By the way, I'm all for nuclear energy even though I wasn't in the US Navy.  UK Navy has Nuclear subs, too.  Oh yeah.

I'll tick off a lot more theists than atheists that way, jtp.  The majority of my home county is theistic, and those folks are the ones protesting uranium exploration nearby.  I can't blame them, in a way, but these same people (in eastern Ontario, Canada) are the ones who draw half their electricity from nuclear fission of uranium, so my sympathy only extends so far.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #71 on: December 31, 2011, 12:29:47 AM »
Replying to me:
OK, so theists aren't people?  The different disciplines of Christianity aren't constantly sharpening each other?  Calvinism vs. Arminiunism?  People do like to be right, that's why believers succumb to the truth that they are wrong and God (Bible) is right.   I believe it's the smart people who have muddied things up!  Us knuckle dragging, NASCAR fan, Bible thumping, turnip truck drivers who just go to work and pay our taxes.  It's you geniuses that have all the answers and know how we should live and what we should believe that "muddied" things up.

Proof!!  Keep shaking your head!!!!!!  Where is the proof of BBT or evolution?  It's the exact same proof we use for a young earth.  And if you take a seriously objective look at the evidence, you'd have to agree the earth and our solar system has to be young.  It has to be!
Bold & underline mine

Bold: Where did you get this from? Not from what I wrote – that's for sure.

Underline: The proof for BBT & evolution is the exact same one you use for 'young earth'? They are on opposite sides of the issue – the proof of one would refute the other.

I go back to long ago posts, the heat of compression trumps gravity (your new stars and generational planets from old star stuff theory).  For your theory to work, the physics of the universe had to be different up to about 6000 years ago. 

For your side it doesn't matter, science is what it needs to be.

Every statement there is a load of garbage. It vaguely approaches making sense then veers off wildly as if trying to run itself off the road.

For those of you at home, here is a little experiment you can do.    :)
You will need:
2 large glass containers of equal size – I will refer to these as fish tanks below
40 packages of 6-serving jello of various flavors (20 if possible)
20 different kinds of gummi animals: worms, bears, etc.
Sufficient water to make the jello and the proper cooking utensils. Have an adult handy to watch over any stove usage.

If you are in the northern part of the northern hemisphere, this is a good time of year for this.
Split the jello and gummi animals into two equal groups.

Prepare according to the package instructions the first package of jello from group 1. Pour into fish tank and add the first kind of gummi animals. Place somewhere the jello can set (like outside if cold enough).
Once the jello has set, repeat the procedure with the second package and second kind of gummi animals allowing enough time for the jello to set. Continue repeating until you have 20 layers of different flavors of jello with 20 different kinds of gummi animals embedded in them. This is the evolution fish tank.

Group 2 (young earth/great flood)
In a large enough container pour all 20 packages of jello and the appropriate amount of water for all 20 pkgs. Prepare according to the package instructions then pour into the second fish tank. Add all the gummi animals at once. Allow to set.

Compare each fish tank (many layers of the evolution fish tank or one amorphous mass of the young earth/great flood fish tank) with what you can find out in nature. To simulate geological uplift, cut sections out and place them at ineresting angles - get your parents permission as this part could be messy. Have fun.

This can be adjusted to suit the containers, jello flavors and gummi animals available


Re-read your post "Reply #36 on: 9:43....yesterday.... 

Your every statement is a load of garbage....oh wait a minute...did you say that?

It's just that it's frustrating arguing over and over again that 3rd generation star stuff makes planets when it is fact that the heat of compression will not allow gasses, dust, star stuff, etc. to form a solid mass similar to an earth.  And no one provides an argument contrary wise.  Thus, my comment that the physics had to be different through out all of cosmic history for your theories to be correct and that's not even getting into evolution, which requires all modern scientific observable scientific evidence to be turned on its head to be true.  Any you guys claim to be the champions of science.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6624
  • Darwins +792/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #72 on: December 31, 2011, 12:33:48 AM »
It's just that it's frustrating arguing over and over again that 3rd generation star stuff makes planets when it is fact that the heat of compression will not allow gasses, dust, star stuff, etc. to form a solid mass similar to an earth.  And no one provides an argument contrary wise.  Thus, my comment that the physics had to be different through out all of cosmic history for your theories to be correct and that's not even getting into evolution, which requires all modern scientific observable scientific evidence to be turned on its head to be true.  Any you guys claim to be the champions of science.

I got in this a little late and don't feel like going through all the old posts. Did you provide a source for this claim? If so, will you please provide it again for my benefit.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #73 on: December 31, 2011, 12:36:41 AM »
Proof!!  Keep shaking your head!!!!!!  Where is the proof of BBT or evolution?  It's the exact same proof we use for a young earth.  And if you take a seriously objective look at the evidence, you'd have to agree the earth and our solar system has to be young.  It has to be!

It has to be? Are you saying that because there is no other explanation or because that is the result required for you to be comfortable in your beliefs?

Young earth? How do you interpret the many layers of fossils, always in the same order, found throughout the world? How do you explain that there are some fossils that are only found in two places in the world. In relatively limited areas on the east coast of South America and on the west coast of the African continent. In exactly the spots where the two continents were clearly attached hundreds of milliions of years ago. What other explanation can there be for such facts? The thousands and thousands of layers of rock. The hundreds of thousands of layers of ice in Antarctic and Greenland ice fields. A moon that circles us without an atmosphere that is covered, and I mean covered, by millions of craters caused by meteors and asteroids and comets. Seen it hit lately? Does the moon get hit by large flying rocks on a regular basis? If the earth and moon are only 6,000 years old, why weren't your biblical buddies mentioning all the huge explosions on the moon? You would think someone would have brought it up.

If they happened for the most part long before humans were able to survive on the planet, then not much would happen in the timespan of our species. The reason the two didn't coexist is because when the moon was getting peppered, so to was the earth, and it was sort of hard to survive so many flying rocks.

There are trees in the mountains of California that are 5,000 years old. There are other colonies of trees that have been shown to be 80,000 years old, but not the individual trees, so I won't ask you to believe those numbers. Tree rings don't lie, though.

Archaeologists in the US are finding evidence of human habitation over 10,000 years old, and this is the last part of the world settled. Why would there be evidence of campsites all over the country buried 10 and 12 and 14 feet deep. How did they get so deep. We're not talking towns and villages, just campsites.

When was the ice age? The evidence for huge glaciers covering the northern areas of America, Europe and Asia are beyond dispute. Yet there is no mention in the bible of such events. Colder than crap and Moses doesn't complain? Is that how Jesus walked on water. It was ice? No, the glaciers didn't go that far south, but I'm guessing the weather was a bit different for awhile. And if the glaciers were in Europe during early biblical times, why are there archaeological ruins ten thousand years old and more in northern europe? (and you can't go around saying hey look, archaeologists have found ruins of a city that was mentioned in the bible, so it must be true, and then poo-poo other archaeological finds that don't match your little tale).

The current count of 300 sextillion stars in the universe (spread across at least 100,000,000,000 galaxies), are completely consistent with the big bang. And sort of a strange thing for god to do if earth gets equal billing, as in "In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth". The need for 299,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 extra stars was what?

What science has is consistency. Geology agrees with paleontology which agree with chemistry which matches up well with biology. We also have the aforementioned archaeology and other sciences who find collaborating evidence for a much, much older planet and a much much older universe than the one you hope we have. We have medical researchers today using the principals of evolution to create new medicines. And there are succeeding. If evolution is bunk, why does it work?

We have way too much information confirming our assumptions for you to be able to dismiss them with the phrase "It has to be". You're gonna need to provide a lot more than mere desperation to get us to consider your side of the argument.

If you can provide objective interpretations of evidence, do so. But until then, just claiming you have some won't cut it around here or anywhere else.

I love this one "How do you interpret the many layers of fossils, always in the same order, found throughout the world?"

How do you explain the vertical fossil logs through many layers?  Found somewhere in France.  Research your guy Derek Ager.  The non-uniform layers found in the Grand Canyon? 
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6624
  • Darwins +792/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #74 on: December 31, 2011, 12:37:51 AM »
You cut and paste the whole thing and responded to only one thing? Doesn't that hurt your fingers?
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6624
  • Darwins +792/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #75 on: December 31, 2011, 12:54:05 AM »
I love this one "How do you interpret the many layers of fossils, always in the same order, found throughout the world?"

How do you explain the vertical fossil logs through many layers?  Found somewhere in France.  Research your guy Derek Ager.  The non-uniform layers found in the Grand Canyon?

You're real careful not to go into any detail. If one flood event caused the fossil beds, why are the oldest insects ALWAYS under the reptiles and mammals, and why are there no dinosaurs mixed in with saber touth tigers and mastadons and such. Never. The various conditions that caused fossilization (often including drifting sand in dry conditions) never have humans mixed in with prehuman critters, and never have prehuman critters mixed in with humans. How can that be? Millions drowned and none of their bodies are mixed in with dinosaurs are caught in the layers of the grand canyon? How can that be?

And vertical logs in layers are easy. Wet logs take tens of thousands of years to rot away, so if they are standing in a newly formed lake (lava flow, landslide caused, whatever) and silt starts building up on the lake floor over a few millenia, you end up with vertical logs through multiple layers. There is a lake in Oregon that dammed up via a lava flow ten thousand years ago and you can still go out in a boat and look into the water and see the frickin' trees that drowned then. It happens to be nice clean water but I've no doubt that if you went down to the bottom and poked around you would find sediments in layers around the base. Were the surroundings dirtier silt would have built up faster and if they all ended up fossilizing, you'd get exactly what was observed in your first example.

Just to be nice, I'll give you something to be flippant about so you don't have to respond to the first part of this post. Alligator larvae have been found inside some brands of burritos. That proves the universe is old.

There, I'm sure you'll find a way to rip that to pieces. And you can therefore ignore the rest of my post because it's just too damned much info.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #76 on: December 31, 2011, 12:54:43 AM »
It's just that it's frustrating arguing over and over again that 3rd generation star stuff makes planets when it is fact that the heat of compression will not allow gasses, dust, star stuff, etc. to form a solid mass similar to an earth.  And no one provides an argument contrary wise.  Thus, my comment that the physics had to be different through out all of cosmic history for your theories to be correct and that's not even getting into evolution, which requires all modern scientific observable scientific evidence to be turned on its head to be true.  Any you guys claim to be the champions of science.

I got in this a little late and don't feel like going through all the old posts. Did you provide a source for this claim? If so, will you please provide it again for my benefit.

Thermodynamics, JP Holman, 1980, McGraw-Hill, Inc.  I refer to chapter 6.  Bottom line:  you need to apply work to compress a gas, there is not enough gravitational force between the molecules to do it.  In fact, without an outside force, they tend to go further apart toward a higher entropy.  Heat is generated if you compress a gas, the heat generated will try to make it to expand.  The heat of compression is greater than the gravitational forces that exist between the molecules.  It won't happen given the laws of Thermodynamics.  That is the laws we use to build cars, jets, refrigerators, etc.

The physical principles we use today for observational science had to be different during planet formation according to your world view.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #77 on: December 31, 2011, 12:55:09 AM »
It's just that it's frustrating arguing over and over again that 3rd generation star stuff makes planets when it is fact that the heat of compression will not allow gasses, dust, star stuff, etc. to form a solid mass similar to an earth.  And no one provides an argument contrary wise.  Thus, my comment that the physics had to be different through out all of cosmic history for your theories to be correct and that's not even getting into evolution, which requires all modern scientific observable scientific evidence to be turned on its head to be true.  Any you guys claim to be the champions of science.

I got in this a little late and don't feel like going through all the old posts. Did you provide a source for this claim? If so, will you please provide it again for my benefit.

No source provided. This supposed "heat of compression" issue is a new one to me. He says that phrase like it means something to anyone but him - supposed from old posts he claims but he doesn't provide links. It makes it more difficult for us to refute if he doesn't actually present an arguement or even a link to one.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12452
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #78 on: December 31, 2011, 12:59:26 AM »
^^ What jtp, and apparently his source, don't understand is that heat radiates and is lost to space.  Cool matter can coalesce quite readily.

EDIT:  His source probably *does* understand it, but jtp doesn't, so the thermodynamics get misapplied.  School helps with that sort of thing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 01:04:29 AM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4660
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #79 on: December 31, 2011, 01:01:29 AM »
I am curious JtP is your explanation a theory or is it based on something provable(note I did NOT say science)
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6624
  • Darwins +792/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #80 on: December 31, 2011, 01:03:00 AM »
And what part of iron, carbon, chromium, copper, zinc, etc. are gaseous?
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #81 on: December 31, 2011, 01:05:42 AM »
I love this one "How do you interpret the many layers of fossils, always in the same order, found throughout the world?"

How do you explain the vertical fossil logs through many layers?  Found somewhere in France.  Research your guy Derek Ager.  The non-uniform layers found in the Grand Canyon?

You're real careful not to go into any detail. If one flood event caused the fossil beds, why are the oldest insects ALWAYS under the reptiles and mammals, and why are there no dinosaurs mixed in with saber touth tigers and mastadons and such. Never. The various conditions that caused fossilization (often including drifting sand in dry conditions) never have humans mixed in with prehuman critters, and never have prehuman critters mixed in with humans. How can that be? Millions drowned and none of their bodies are mixed in with dinosaurs are caught in the layers of the grand canyon? How can that be?

And vertical logs in layers are easy. Wet logs take tens of thousands of years to rot away, so if they are standing in a newly formed lake (lava flow, landslide caused, whatever) and silt starts building up on the lake floor over a few millenia, you end up with vertical logs through multiple layers. There is a lake in Oregon that dammed up via a lava flow ten thousand years ago and you can still go out in a boat and look into the water and see the frickin' trees that drowned then. It happens to be nice clean water but I've no doubt that if you went down to the bottom and poked around you would find sediments in layers around the base. Were the surroundings dirtier silt would have built up faster and if they all ended up fossilizing, you'd get exactly what was observed in your first example.

Just to be nice, I'll give you something to be flippant about so you don't have to respond to the first part of this post. Alligator larvae have been found inside some brands of burritos. That proves the universe is old.

There, I'm sure you'll find a way to rip that to pieces. And you can therefore ignore the rest of my post because it's just too damned much info.

Thanks for being nice.  But your Oregon lake example makes my point, that the fossil record is not caused by Unitarianism Naturalism. 

How long does it take to make a fossil?  Be careful with your answer because you know there are turd fossils (how long does $hit hang around).  And in the UK fossils of items known to be very young (100's of years) were found in the peat bogs.

You yourself admit that the fossil record is not uniform.

Tell me what Derek Ager (your guy) says.  Who's being dogmatic?
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4660
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #82 on: December 31, 2011, 01:08:27 AM »
oil comes from where?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6624
  • Darwins +792/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #83 on: December 31, 2011, 01:12:31 AM »
The Fermi-paradox goes back to my original leading question. Did the universe start as a bang?  I only ask it to make you all think.  Of course the geniuses think it started in a bang!  They talk about how in 1/1000000000th (or whatever) of a second after the big bang that energy/matter was thus  (aka, physics was different then).   I'm fine with that....whatever....don't get me wrong.   

My question is now!  I remember being taught that stars billions of years older than ours become red giants and swallow up their surrounding planets.  Huh?  Aren't all stars the same age?  Are the ones further out older (how) than our sun? 

That's why I addressed this to geniuses.  HELP?

The nice thing about time is that it takes awhile. Though you aren't a big fan of star cycles, or our sun being a third generation star, that's about all we have. Along with tens of thousands of scientific papers on all sorts of astronomical subjects that when taken in mass sort of back up the whole thing.

By the way, I'm not really in the mood to spend $266 on your source material, the current cost of that book on Amazon. Any ideas on how I could, you know, check your source without spending half of next months rent money?

And in response to what you posted while I typed this. Yea, there probably are young fossils. But there are a whole bunch of old ones too. Why are the same really old ones always under the different and younger newer ones? Why are different fossils in different layers. Consistently. One flood shouldn't do that. And try as I might, I'm not quite sure why I should be a proponent of Unitarian Naturalism. If this is gonna cost another $266 you'll have to argue with someone else. But I don't think any of us are quoting it on a regular basis.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #84 on: December 31, 2011, 01:16:00 AM »
^^ What jtp, and apparently his source, don't understand is that heat radiates and is lost to space.  Cool matter can coalesce quite readily.

EDIT:  His source probably *does* understand it, but jtp doesn't, so the thermodynamics get misapplied.  School helps with that sort of thing.

This is the problem with modern day education, coalescence is not a product of gravitational forces.  A drop is what it is.  One plus one equal two!
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12452
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #85 on: December 31, 2011, 01:20:05 AM »
^^ What jtp, and apparently his source, don't understand is that heat radiates and is lost to space.  Cool matter can coalesce quite readily.

EDIT:  His source probably *does* understand it, but jtp doesn't, so the thermodynamics get misapplied.  School helps with that sort of thing.

This is the problem with modern day education, coalescence is not a product of gravitational forces.  A drop is what it is.  One plus one equal two!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coalesce
co·a·lesce (k-ls)
intr.v. co·a·lesced, co·a·lesc·ing, co·a·lesc·es
1. To grow together; fuse.
2. To come together so as to form one whole; unite: The rebel units coalesced into one army to fight the invaders.

My usage was accurate.  You're just trolling now.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6624
  • Darwins +792/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #86 on: December 31, 2011, 01:21:36 AM »
^^ What jtp, and apparently his source, don't understand is that heat radiates and is lost to space.  Cool matter can coalesce quite readily.

EDIT:  His source probably *does* understand it, but jtp doesn't, so the thermodynamics get misapplied.  School helps with that sort of thing.

This is the problem with modern day education, coalescence is not a product of gravitational forces.  A drop is what it is.  One plus one equal two!

Oh crap. Wikipedia disagrees with you. You'd better go edit this article quick!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalescence_(physics)

Says right there that:
Quote
Coalescence is the process by which two or more droplets, bubbles or particles merge during contact to form a single daughter droplet, bubble or particle. It can take place in many processes, ranging from meteorology to astrophysics. For example, it is both inve formation of raindrops as well as planetary and star formation.

You go fix that. We'll wait.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!