It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by MrXYZ
Just how like evolutionists keep changing their MO every time a creationist points out inherent gaps in their theory?
The only thing you guys have proved is that natural selection occurs on a small stage. There is no evidence that natural selection works on atrophy of limbs or entire biological systems.
Just how like evolutionists keep changing their MO every time a creationist points out inherent gaps in their theory?
The only thing you guys have proved is that natural selection occurs on a small stage. There is no evidence that natural selection works on atrophy of limbs or entire biological systems.
Please don't flag me! Sorry for being off topic.
Questions from the video:
1. Why aren't we in a binary star system?
2. Why is our solar systems orbits cocentric?
3. Could supernovas have provided enough to account for all of the heavy elements on Earth?
4. How can we be sure that said heavy elements actually occur in stars? (I don't want mathematical proof)
5. How many supernova does it take to account for the abundance of terrestrial heavy elements? Has this been demonstrated ANYWHERE else in the universe?
Again, I don't want mathematical hypothesis I wan't proof that this type of "luck" occurs in the universe.
Originally posted by CaptainNemo
Well then I'm confused as to why you posted it in this forum.
The video talks about the origins of life it's inevitable that discussion would lead to evolution.
Questions from the video:
1. Why aren't we in a binary star system?
2. Why is our solar systems orbits cocentric?
3. Could supernovas have provided enough to account for all of the heavy elements on Earth?
4. How can we be sure that said heavy elements actually occur in stars? (I don't want mathematical proof)
5. How many supernova does it take to account for the abundance of terrestrial heavy elements? Has this been demonstrated ANYWHERE else in the universe?
Again, I don't want mathematical hypothesis I wan't proof that this type of "luck" occurs in the universe.
edit on 6-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)
The end result is that the solar nebula, if it existed, would have required components from a supernova (whose remnant is mysteriously undetectable today) that once existed as an ABG star. Moreover, somehow all the radionuclides either became incorporated in the earth's crust or else landed on the surface of the moon or are part of the moon's five-meter-thick regolith. The nebula theory predicts a nearly uniform distribution of transferric and trans-lead elements throughout the earth's crust and deep in the bedrock of the moon. Project Apollo did not drill that far, so the latter assumption remains untested—but the first assumption has already been falsified: radioactive ores are found on the continents, never on the ocean floor. Continue reading on Examiner.com The origin of heavy (and radioactive) elements
2. Elliptical orbits are stable too, in fact most planetary orbits are elliptical. There are no other observable concentric orbits in the known universe.
(Emphasis mine.)
In November 2008, the first two widely-accepted direct detections of planets around main sequence stars were announced -- one orbiting Fomalhaut (Kalas et al. 2008) and three in concentric orbits around HR 8799 (Marois et al. 2008).
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by Jameela
Theory is not fact
Here's what a scientific theory is...not far from the colloquial use of "fact"
In this case, we have actually observed and tested this, so we KNOW how those molecules come to be.edit on 5-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
1. Well with the hypothesized size of the nebula that formed our solar system why wasn't a binary star system the result? Most star systems are binary Link
2. Elliptical orbits are stable too, in fact most planetary orbits are elliptical. There are no other observable concentric orbits in the known universe.
3. Well then besides the moon what other bodies in our solar system have been analyzed and shown to have radioactive elements? (None)
4. False. Heavy elements like the ones that occur on our planet CANNOT be detected spectroscopically. We can detect LIGHTER elements in the atmosphere of other planets.
5. It would take millions:
The fact remains that the entire affair is a product of intelligent design but NOT some being like so called god BUT rather a universal under pinning force, an algorithm, that everything adhere's to. Off course that IS the mystery. Just have a look at the bacterial flagellum, geometry, golden ration etc etc and you'll understand what I mean.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by CaptainNemo
1. Well with the hypothesized size of the nebula that formed our solar system why wasn't a binary star system the result? Most star systems are binary Link
2. Elliptical orbits are stable too, in fact most planetary orbits are elliptical. There are no other observable concentric orbits in the known universe.
3. Well then besides the moon what other bodies in our solar system have been analyzed and shown to have radioactive elements? (None)
4. False. Heavy elements like the ones that occur on our planet CANNOT be detected spectroscopically. We can detect LIGHTER elements in the atmosphere of other planets.
5. It would take millions:
1. The link is for all stars. Our Sun is not a typical star. Stars link our Sun are in binary systems less than half the time.
2. All orbits are elliptical. A circular orbit is simply an elliptical orbit with e=0. Orbits that are not concentric lead to changes in orbits where transfer of momentum makes the orbits less eccentric.
3. False. Mars.
4. False. www.eso.org...
5. There are billions of stars now and there have been many that have existed before our solar system
Seriously, don't you check things out first?
"The Martian surface is covered with a thin layer of radioactive substances including uranium, thorium and radioactive potassium -- and this pattern radiates from a hot spot [on Mars]
Taken as a whole, this diversity of orbital architectures suggests that episodes of dynamical upheaval and orbital reorganization are common during the formation of planetary systems.
You're very vaguely answering my questions...
2. Really you want to play the semantics game? Okay, ROUGHLY concentric. There is an observable difference.
Thin layer on the surface of ONE spot, meaning it's not naturally occurring.
K/Th determined by the Mars Odyssey Gamma Ray Spectrometer varies by a factor of 3 on Mars (3000 to 9000), but over 95% of the surface area has K/Th between 4000 and 7000.
They won't find it in it's crust either . The uniformity of the stellar nebula hypothesis requires the roughly even distribution of heavy elements.
4. How can we be sure that said heavy elements actually occur in stars? (I don't want mathematical proof)
4. We can detect them spectroscopically
4. False. Heavy elements like the ones that occur on our planet CANNOT be detected spectroscopically. We can detect LIGHTER elements in the atmosphere of other planets.
Yes, but the very small time frame and the massive amount of energy required doesn't fit the hypothesis.
Maybe the majority of planetary orbits start roughly concentric and stretch from there?
Originally posted by novastrike81
Gravity is [a] phenomenon
This section talks about our origins...and given that we consist of molecules formed inside stars, it's relevant to this section. However, that's all the video talks about, the building blocks of life...NOT evolution
I really am not clear as to what you are asking about the orbits. Are you asking why the planets have separate orbits that do not in some sense overlap?
That is a failure as well. That assume no differentiation processes have occurred since the material accreted. Can you explain why osmium is rare at the Earth's surface? Can you explain why more iron is concentrated in the Earth's core?