The most astounding fact!

Originally posted by Microscopictopic
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

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

Question. How do they know that whatever force formed the stars did not form us from some of the same elements?

We're made of the same elements, correct. However, the birth of a star is an entirely different process compared to the creation of a life form.

Ahahaha, seems like Miley Cyrus agrees with Tyson too...and getting a lot of hate for it

For those doubting stellar nucleosynthesis, read the B2FH paper...not an easy read, but it makes it very clear that this theory is correct: LINK

reply to post by CaptainNemo

Yes, I can explain why osmium is rare at the Earth's surface, my God put it there.

You're leaving out a key step in your logic:

1. "osmium is rare at the Earth's surface"
2. I don't know how that came to be.
3. "my God put it there"

So you're content with using a god of the gaps argument.

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson:

Does it mean if you don't understand something ... that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? ... If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on.

Later in the same interview, he goes on to say:

I don't even care if someone wants to say, "You don't understand that, God did it." ... What would bother me is if you were so content in that answer, that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stop looking because you're content God did it ... you're useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world.

reply to post by CaptainNemo

Yes, I can explain why osmium is rare at the Earth's surface, my God put it there.

And this is where you lost all credibility. After people posted tons of scientific papers and links that show exactly how stellar nucleosynthesis works, you come up with this:

I don't really know, but let's just fill this gap in knowledge with magic (aka god). Typical god of the gaps argument. And worst of all, you actually pretend that's true knowledge

reply to post by CaptainNemo

No, I'm saying why are our planetary orbits essentially perfect compared to observed extrasolar orbits. Don't argue eccentrics, some of our planetary orbits are almost perfect up to TWO decimal places.

Do you mean perfect as in circular? The eccentricity of the planets except for Mercury is quite low, especially Venus, Earth, and Neptune. The values are not zero, but small. Is that what you are referring to?

Does that assumption apply to the nebula theory? I thought it required the uniform distribution of transferric and translead elements. Yes, I can explain why osmium is rare at the Earth's surface, my God put it there. Can you explain why radioactive ores are found on continents but not on the ocean floor? Can you or the nebular hypothesis explain why mercury is 75% iron?

It is a process called differentiation. There is no requirement that there be a uniform distribution at any point in time. Here on Earth we exploit that different materials are acted on differently during processes. Gas centrifuges are an example of where even a subtle difference can be exploited to obtain a desired effect. Mercury's differentiation processes are a function of its size and position in the solar system.

Osmium is not rare at the Earth's surface because of a supernatural event. Osmium bonds strongly to iron and has moved out of the crust and to the core. The same is true of iridium.

Crusts tend to be granitic while ocean floors are basalt. Basalts do contain radioactive minerals. That is how they are dated. The question is a bit odd because you are asking for ores and ores I think of as having not existence but being a commercially valuable deposit. Due to the depths of the oceans we have not bothered to search there for commercially viable deposits of materials. Extraction would be too costly.

Basically it looks like you are going from biblical shyster paper to biblical shyster paper asking questions and using their terminology without looking up the material yourself, which I believe you could. Is that what is happening? It looks to me like your phrasing of "transferric and translead elements" is copied from some other place.

Here is a link
www.examiner.com...

That link contains many of the mistakes you have posted such as only radioactive materials on Earth and Moon. It has the uniform distribution claim. The author has been shown to be wrong several times. Why continue to think this person is truthful? He is the sort of intelligent person I've seen give creationist lectures. My opinion is that they are intelligent enough to know that they are telling lies. These are not mistakes, but purposeful lies.

And this is where you lost all credibility. After people posted tons of scientific papers and links that show exactly how stellar nucleosynthesis works, you come up with this:

reply to post by MrXYZ


I'm not trying to detract from your OP. I KNOW how stellar nucleosynthesis works, you've supplied more than enough links. There was more to the video than stellar nucleosynthesis, and please understand there are going to be people who disagree that this is how the solar system was created. Sorry to inform you but you're not sharing FACT so don't pass it off as fact. Even astrophysicists with the currently 'accepted' nebula theory cannot explain how our solar system attained and remains in such perfection. For example, they can't explain how the planetissimals exactly came to be planets.

Also understand that I am a servant of God, and I seek to use my knowledge to vindicate his ways. Evolutionary astronomists expound there theories upon the idea that God does not exist. Unfortunately, some of the 'weaker'-minded creationists get dissuaded from arguing with the guy with the double masters in physics. Whenever you asks one of these guys a simple question they respond with an verbosely, over-complex explanation. Evolutionists efforts are to NO avail because we know the answer, GOD DID IT.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Microscopictopic
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

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

Question. How do they know that whatever force formed the stars did not form us from some of the same elements?

We're made of the same elements, correct. However, the birth of a star is an entirely different process compared to the creation of a life form.

lol. At any rate it was a great video.

reply to post by CaptainNemo

For example, they can't explain how the planetissimals exactly came to be planets.

Also understand that I am a servant of God, and I seek to use my knowledge to vindicate his ways. Evolutionary astronomists expound there theories upon the idea that God does not exist. Unfortunately, some of the 'weaker'-minded creationists get dissuaded from arguing with the guy with the double masters in physics. Whenever you asks one of these guys a simple question they respond with an verbosely, over-complex explanation. Evolutionists efforts are to NO avail because we know the answer, GOD DID IT.

There is a process called accretion that describes how material is collected into planets.

There is a difference between stating that an event does not require a god to cause it and stating there is no god.

The fact is that you do know if god exists. You simply assume god exists. You have no evidence for god. That is what is called faith based thinking. It is not possible to prove that god exists or does not exist. On the other hand it is possible to prove that elements are created in stars. It is possible to develop models showing how accretion works.

Maybe the world is complex and is sometimes hard to describe, but it can be done. It may require more effort than saying magic, or god did it, or something else which can be tossed around carelessly and with no meaning.

reply to post by CaptainNemo

There was more to the video than stellar nucleosynthesis

Oh really? What then? Because all he said was that we and everything around us consists of base elements...and we KNOW (real knowledge, not the god of the gaps "god did it" argument!) that those base elements form inside stars.

The real reason why you don't like this is simply because it makes it abundantly clear that the whole Adam and Eve story is hogwash...unless you claim god used stars to create the base elements to construct humans. And even then it's abundantly clear that the Genesis story is nonsense because humans clearly didn't just pop up on earth in their current form...which the bible wrongfully states.

Evolutionary astronomists

There is no such thing. You might just as well start looking for "mechanic cooks" or "dog sitter pilots"

because we know the answer, GOD DID IT

Prove it! Because if you can't present objective testable evidence of that, you're simply using the god of the gaps argument...aka filling a gap in knowledge with magic. In other words, you're preaching

I think it's hilarious that you claim "no proof" for some scientific theories, yet then go on to say "god did it" without having the slightest bit of objective evidence. Bit hypocritical, don't you think

The "god did it" argument is laughable. Why? Because its track record is pretty horrible...not a single thing has been proven to be god's work. In ancient times they claimed plagues where caused by god as punishment...thanks to science we now know that's total nonsense. They also claimed comets are a sign of god...which of course is also nonsense. And don't get me started on the floods and earthquakes!

If you use that argument, you have to realize that every time science debunks one of those claims (which it has hundreds of times), your god gets smaller and smaller as the things attributed to him slowly chip away. This is also the main reason the amount of believers is shrinking, and has been for over 20 years now. As scientific knowledge is more readily available (Internet, TV, etc.), people start to wake up and realize that a lot of the "god did it" claims are beyond nonsense.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Science IS God.! He created this universe and he works through the physical. I NEVER said how he did it, I just know that he did. I'm saying that if you do not factor in God in your theories, or you don't conform your science to God you will have tired yourself out soon enough. Whenever somebody with some sense tries to introduce something counter-intuitive to the sterile dogma that is the scientific community they are utterly ridiculed.

I do know that God exists. He lived, died and resurrected. The Bible is the most consistent historical and genealogical reference in existence.


What if I told you that I have irrefutable evidence that MAN came before bacteria?

Pleomorphism

reply to post by CaptainNemo

Science IS God.! He created this universe and he works through the physical. I NEVER said how he did it, I just know that he did. I'm saying that if you do not factor in God in your theories, or you don't conform your science to God you will have tired yourself out soon enough. Whenever somebody with some sense tries to introduce something counter-intuitive to the sterile dogma that is the scientific community they are utterly ridiculed.

I do know that God exists. He lived, died and resurrected. The Bible is the most consistent historical and genealogical reference in existence.


What if I told you that I have irrefutable evidence that MAN came before bacteria?

You have no evidence for any of the god claims. If you had evidence you would not have to cling to this belief solely on faith.

It is false to claim that I or anyone else would be tired out without belief in god. There are countless atheists that would disagree with you by pointing to themselves as clear evidence against your claim.

Science is not dogma. It is a system which is willing to change as the evidence is discerned. The same is not true of the tired old religious point of view which is to bend everything to their point of view. It cannot change.

The bible is a terrible record of history. No flood. Exodus does not appear to have happened. It's a mess.

Have you decided what you think is a perfect orbit? Can you describe it so that an answer can be found for you - if possible of course.

reply to post by CaptainNemo

I just know that he did

You are clearly confusing "knowledge" with "belief"

I do know that God exists. He lived, died and resurrected. The Bible is the most consistent historical and genealogical reference in existence.

No...you BELIEVE that god exists

And the bible accurate? You're kidding, right? People surviving inside whales? Comets a sign of god? Stuffing every single animal into a single boat smaller than the Titanic? A silly global flood for which thee is ZERO objective evidence (and I'm ignoring for a fact that salt water would destroy soils for decades and kill of most fish). And the list goes on...

And the bible being historically consistent? Given that there's no objective evidence of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, I beg to differ. In fact, there are dozens of blatant inconsistencies in the bible.

Of course you're simply going to ignore all that and pretend those FACTS don't really exist

Sterilogist says:

It is a process called differentiation. There is no requirement that there be a uniform distribution at any point in time. Here on Earth we exploit that different materials are acted on differently during processes. Gas centrifuges are an example of where even a subtle difference can be exploited to obtain a desired effect. Mercury's differentiation processes are a function of its size and position in the solar system.

Wow, that's some radical differentiation then.! It seems like every other planet got the really short end of the stick. But of course, you guy KNOW that happen. Pretty soon the nebula theories going to have some reckoning with some incontrovertible evidence.

Behold the god of evolution, CHANCE.!

Hahaha, come on humble yourself a bit and admit that both our level of understandings are the same.

You haven't posted anything to support the claim of man before bacteria.

What you have done is post a lot of words without quotes which I believe you have copied from sites and pretended as being your own. You should provide references instead of infringing on copyrights.

Scientific theories are checked and tested. The concept of pleomorphism was tested a long time ago and was discarded since it did not work.

Recently someone has brought up this claim once again. This is a person that was convicted of practicing medicine without a license. He moved to another country where he caused the death of someone.

No one else sees these objects. Why is that? Maybe because this person is a fraud and is making ludicrous claims

Try learning a little about microscopes to learn why the claims of this device are unfounded.

reply to post by stereologist

Science is not dogma. It is a system which is willing to change as the evidence is discerned. The same is not true of the tired old religious point of view which is to bend everything to their point of view. It cannot change. The bible is a terrible record of history.

I simply ask that you eventually find some time to read over the thread on pleomorphism I linked.

No flood. Exodus does not appear to have happened. It's a mess.

Why do we have whale fossils on top of the Andes then?
www.nytimes.com...

And I believe Noah's Ark was discovered on Mt. Ararat in 1980.

Don't even get me started on conventional Egyptology... Khufre still built the pyramids at Giza

reply to post by CaptainNemo

Why do we have whale fossils on top of the Andes then?

For the same reasons we find fossilized clams on top of Everest. Ever bothered to read up on continental drift and plate tectonics?

Only fools really believe one of each type of animals would fit in a boat smaller than the Titanic...especially since half of those animals require the other as FOOD!

And the exodus of the Jews is complete and utter nonsense too as told in the bible:

According to Exodus 12:37-38, the Israelites numbered "about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children," plus many non-Israelites and livestock.[9] Numbers 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550.[10] The 600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites would have numbered some 2 million people,[11] compared with an entire Egyptian population in 1250 BCE of around 3 to 3.5 million.[12] Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long.[13]

No evidence has been found that indicates Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe or that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds.

(LINK)

Bolded the important part.

reply to post by stereologist


I admit that my overall discourse has been essentially ad hoc, but I have not plagiarized any material. I have paraphrased some relevant arguments.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Well considering the Andes were created '100 million' years ago and these whales died '20 million' years ago, that would be a physical impossibility.

6000 years ago there weren't as many species as there are today. I'm sure you've done the head count. Also, some animals were taken in either sevens or twos.

And go ahead, keep recklessly linking wiki's. Think for yourself man.

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well considering the Andes were created '100 million' years ago and these whales died '20 million' years ago, that would be a physical impossibility.

6000 years ago there weren't as many species as there are today. I'm sure you've done the head count. Also, some animals were taken in either sevens or twos.

And go ahead, keep recklessly linking wiki's. Think for yourself man.

Or you could simply do some basic research and figure out that you got your dates wrong

1) The fossils are around 15-20m years old.
2) The Andes have experience a rapid growth since then...in fact, they are STILL actively growing now thanks to volcanoes for example.
3) Ergo plate tectonics explain it perfectly fine.

LINK This is the same link you posted, the one you obviously haven't read as you got the age of the Andes clearly wrong

6000 years ago there weren't as many species as there are today.

Riiiiight...if you're so sure about that, you can surely provide an objective scientific source for that, right? (clue: the Creation Research Institute isn't "objective")

And it doesn't matter how many they stuffed in that boat, it wouldn't have been large enough for a fraction of the species we see today. There's also ZERO geological evidence for a global flood, and it would have wiped out every single plant on the planet...which of course is also a major food source that wouldn't have been available for decades if a global flood really took place.

But we're going off topic again. FACT is, claiming the bible is 100% accurate is incredibly ignorant given how easy it is to demonstrably prove how wrong it is in many aspects like that silly global flood for example. Please tell me you're not so blinded by faith that you can't accept reality anymore...

By the way...talking about 6k years...you don't seriously believe in a young earth, right? Or that humans are only on this planet for 6-10k years, right?

reply to post by CaptainNemo


I read the thread and it seems to be based on a single person's claim. That person seems to be a fraud. They killed someone through their unethical medical practices.

Why do we have whale fossils on top of the Andes then?

Fossils can be moved to mountain tops through uplift.

And I believe Noah's Ark was discovered on Mt. Ararat in 1980.

No. Not at all. The latest chicanery involves some people hauling up old wood onto the mountain to perpetrate a hoax. These were devout Christians expressing their faith.

Don't even get me started on conventional Egyptology... Khufre still built the pyramids at Giza

Grafitti found inside of the pyramids says so.

The bible has been shown to be wrong when it comes to exodus. That's a major problem.