Author Topic: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)  (Read 6800 times)

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #165 on: July 12, 2018, 05:14:55 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In your mind, will we be so awestruck and dumbfounded by the sheer brilliance of what you have typed that we'll need to go rest our weary heads to absorb it all?
No, Wrong again.
In my mind you will only say:
I did not know about this.
Then in my mind I think you will just continue to deny everything about the Nebular theory, wet Earth, dim Sun, etc.
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Online Mr.Obvious

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #166 on: July 12, 2018, 05:21:36 AM »
Post solely to keep informed of this thread.

 :popcorn:
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, requesting 69 last night.


Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #167 on: July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not that it will do you any good.

I'm going to tell you a creation story now.  It has the advantage of being true, to the best of our species' collective researches.

13.799 billion years ago, give or take twenty-one million years, the Big Bang went bang.  The cause of the Big Bang is an area of active research, but there's no reason to think that it's out of the grasp of researchers to ultimately sort out.  The Big Bang itself is not actually a theory of cosmogony, but an observation of what the origin of the observable universe looks like.  Think of the two-slit experiment in quantum mechanics — the interference pattern is an observation, not an explanation.
and I agree, and I will show you who was the first person to talk about this, and where he found it.

Quote from: trdsf
Not much happened for about 378,000 years, when the universe cooled to the point that neutral atoms could form, rather than being promptly ionized by the heat.  This is what was detected by Penzias and Wilson, confirming the Big Bang model over the Steady State theory.
Correct!
Quote from: trdsf
Not much else happened for another half a billion years or so, what's referred to as the cosmological dark ages.  While the universe continued expanding, clouds of hydrogen with traces of helium and even fainter traces of lithium contracted locally under the pull of their own gravity.  The beginnings of the Milky Way date to this time, although it took another four or five billion years for the spiral arms to develop, probably as the result of a near encounter or even collision with another smaller galaxy.
Just as was proposed in 1755.
Quote from: trdsf
That's about the time the first stars began to light up, because within the area of gravitational collapse for protogalaxies, smaller areas underwent even more localized gravitational collapse.  On the local level, our own sun ignited about 4.6 billion years ago most likely after the local cloud of interstellar gas was compressed by a relatively nearby supernova which further seeded the area with heavy elements.  When the sun lit, the lighter protoplanetary disk elements were pushed outward by the solar wind, leaving rocky debris towards the center.
Ok, so at that stage the Earth was a collection of Ice and matter!
Quote from: trdsf
Out of rocks and dust, not mud, the Earth coalesced.  For the first several hundred million years, the Earth was a lifeless but growing ball of rock heated by impacts and gravitational compression, including the Theia impact event which appears to have led to the formation of the moon.
Oh, ooo! Now we are back to the Hadean epoch, ignoring that water and Dust was already collected by the proto planet Earth before the Sun ignited?
Now you say there was only "Rocks and Dust", no proto planet Earth anymore? especially one that was, just as the other proto planets and Sun collection matter for millions of years!
Quote from: trdsf
The earliest atmosphere, what there was of it, was made of the gases in the protoplanetary disk: hydrogen, ammonia and methane, mainly.  During the Late Heavy Bombardment, outgassing and volcanism added nitrogen and carbon dioxide to the mix.  Contrary to what had been the most widely accepted theory, it's been recently discovered that the isotopic makeup of Earth's water vs. cometary water does not match, so the comet-delivery hypothesis as the main source of water has been modified or abandoned.
But I thought you said the Earth was made only of rocks, and all the volatile elements was blown far away from the Earth?
Thanks for admitting that Comets did not bring water to the Eath.
Oh Golly, but this means water was present when the Earth formed!
But that was what I said!
Science agrees!
Quote from: trdsf
This is the great strength of science: it doesn't matter how good or how plausible your theory is, if nature says it's wrong, then it's wrong and you develop a better theory.  This is also the great fault in your system: you have pre-decided what your conclusion is going to be, and you need to twist or ignore observations to fit it.
Where did I place anything about science from my own thought?
I never did any such a thing.
All I did was to evaluate what the Biblical description on the creation of the Solar System.
I then went to see what scientists discovered, and compared the results.
so, to conclude, the Biblical description is not my idea, but was already postulated in 1755, and 1666.
The scientific descriptions I found in science books, and I continued to read about the difference between the theories of a burning Earth, and a wet Earth.
Nothing more, nothing less.
What I did find is a mumble jumble atheist approace to scientific observations unacceptable to fit in with their religion.
Denial of anything the Bible says.
Quote from: trdsf
Anyway, back to the story.  Also about this time, the expansion of the universe began to accelerate again, but that's an effect on vast scales, not the parochial limits of our little planetary system.
agree!

Quote from: trdsf
Some time around the ten billionth birthday of the universe, in the surface layers and tidal pools of the early oceans on pre-biotic Earth where uncounted quintillions of blind "experiments" were going on, energized by sunlight and ultraviolet radiation and lightning and stirred by the tides and to a lesser extent the winds.

As it turns out, the bits of which life (as we know it) are built are easy to make.  There are vast clouds of aminos and other organics floating freely in space, and even where there aren't any, they can be built with a little patience and a little energy and a few naturally-occurring chemicals.
debatable. Especially if one wants to claim "Organics" is non living in origins.
Quote from: trdsf
Over time, a molecule that was able to make rough copies of itself occurred, quite by chance, although given the staggering number of simultaneous chemical reactions going on over staggering periods of time, it was probably more a matter of a statistical near-inevitability.  You have to remember the numbers involved: if a self-replicating molecule has a chance of appearing equivalent to, for example, Powerball odds, then self-replicating molecules would have appeared immediately, billions or even trillions of times.
and it obviously had DNA, with a few billion genomes, which needed a staggering statistical near inevitability, and only this one survived, with not a single twin, or defective residue of the other staggering near inevitable almost living organisms available as evidence.
but carry on!
Quote from: trdsf
Now, this little molecule wasn't a fully-formed cell, and we probably wouldn't call it alive by modern definitions, but because it could reproduce even as a purely mechanical/chemical function, it could evolve over time.
Not alive, but reproducing by cell division without DNA, or due to reproducing it gained DNA, hu?
Quote from: trdsf
And that's exactly what it did.  Probably most copying errors made it a less efficient replicator, but any random change for the better meant, obviously, better replication.  Any improvement accidentally stumbled across would be kept; any dis-improvement would die out, and self-replicating chemicals could grow more complex over time because the base function of replication became more reliable.  Eventually proto-life systems like viruses and phages developed as improvements added up, and eventually bacteria, and eventually photosynthesis came along, which liberated oxygen into the atmosphere.  This allowed more energetic forms of life to arise, and eventually eukaryotic cells and multicellular systems arose out of the blind groping of the twin forces of natural selection and evolution.
What a wonderful story indeed!
Evidence?
or Theory?
It has to be Theory, for there are not any such examples of something that replicated that was not alive, but became alive and then developed DNA without protein, and protein without DNA,...
Oh, take into consideration that I said, I will not accept theories in my description of science.
If you do not have factual scientific observational studies to support life from nothing, leave it for later. we will get to it.
Quote from: trdsf
And this went on for about three billion years, for 75-80% of the history of life on Earth.  We're all late arrivals -- not just humans, but most life beyond the plant/multicellular stage.  There were a few pre-Cambrian complex animals, but not many.  There appears to have been a combination of effects that led to what's called the Cambrian Explosion half a billion years ago: the oxygenation of the atmosphere reaching a critical level, the completion of the ozone layer to protect near-surface water dwellers from UV radiation, a spike in available calcium in the seas allowing for shells and bones to evolve, a few other factors.
what levels of strata exists for that half a billion years between the Pre Cambrian era, and the Cambrian expansion?
Dont worry to answer, nothing of that kind to show your intermediate missing links in existence.
I like the Global flood much better telling me these fossils were a result of rapid burial. But dont bother about this for now.
Quote from: trdsf
At this point, all life is still in the ocean.  It takes another hundred million years for the first land plants, and another hundred million after that for the first land animals -- nearly 13.5 billion years since the Big Bang, and we *finally* have land life!
Or they were buried first with land animals on top of their strata. Sorry, carry on.
Quote from: trdsf
Evolution, speciation, and the slow accumulation of positive mutations carry on (along with asteroid impacts, ice ages and massive volcanic eruptions) for the next 350 million years, leading up to the rise of humans and civilization (such that it is).

These are the things that hydrogen atoms do with just time and gravity.

Cool, so simple.

Quote from: trdsf
And now we murder your "theory", with both malice and intent.

Even if we allow your "before time" time for the necessary 13.8 billion years less the 6,000 you admit to, there's one thing you cannot have, and that's evidence of genetically modern humans before 6,000 years ago.
I have never said that I believe Humans to be older than 6 000 years. I said the Earth and Universe is older than 6 000 years, and this can be found from the Bible's description that the Universe was created before the first day. Therefore, you murdered only your own strawman argument that I believe life to be older than 6 000 years.
Quote from: trdsf
And we have direct archaeological evidence that Jericho has been continuously occupied by humans since about 10-11,000 BCE and was walled by 6800 BCE -- six to seven thousand years before you want to say humans were "created" and some pretty advanced civil engineering almost 3,000 years before there were humans, according to you.
again, Jericho is not the only so called Archaeological evidence that humans supposedly lived before 10 000 years. Goble Tepe, and more than 15 sites in Turkey also have ancient civilizations. We will get to the dating methods. at a later stage. One thing is for sure, the Chronological sequencing based on Manetho, and the Sirus dating involving Egypt and Greece is totally in error. We will speak about C14 dating, and how science actually attest the Biblical timelines.

Quote from: trdsf
I have been to a dig site in my home town that is direct evidence of humans living there in 8000 BCE: four thousand years too early for your "theory".
Damn but you are old!

Quote from: trdsf
Handwave everything else if you want to, but there is no way that you can assert your "theory" when it explicitly states humans are only 6,000 years old when we have physical, independent, and incontrovertible evidence of our existence as a species long before that date.  For that matter, dogs were domesticated 9,000 years before you would have them created.
We will remember your reply I get to the age of Life.
I would like you to answer me on many things you now claim as scientific facts.

Quote from: trdsf
The only possible path you have to salvage your "theory" is to assert both that every single science is wrong and that they all unequivocally provide exactly the same wrong answers reliably and in support of each other.
Never. never will I question science to further my claims.
It is too dangerous!
Atheists might show me I am wrong.

Quote from: trdsf
And that means you cannot claim reliance on the scientific method yourself.  You cannot assert a scientific answer and at the same ignore the independently repeatable and verifiable results and observations from science.  You can assert biblical creationism if you like, but you may never, ever call it scientific.
Now you are generalizing to the greatest possible hypocrisy.
You first of all carry on about how a Theory, (evolution )unproven, is now a scientific fact, after giving me a theory about what science does not say on the formation of the Solar system, then you use the Theory of evolution, claiming that life needs billions of years to develop, showing me some archaeological sites, which the dating methods are actually in evidence of the Biblical date of life, telling me this is why I am wrong.

Look what you did.
You build a straw man!
You then name this Straw man, Mousetraps theory.
You then destroy the Straw man, telling yourself you destroyed my facts, the Bible, and God!
Damn you are good!
Why dont you wait untill I speak about the age of life and dating of organic matter.
And please take note, this organic matter I speak about was once living matter, not like your so called space matter, that somehow is called organic because you need to make your dead cell replicating into life more alive than dead.

Let me get you back to what I said I am doing.
I took teh Biblicak description of the origins of our Solar system, and looke at what it realy say. Not what someone believes it to say, but the Biblical explanation.
I then looked at what science says, and got the Nebular Hypothesis!
I also went to see why there is just one contradictory claim between these 2 descriptions, and I found that the Burning Hot Earth theories are only Theories, but that the Wet, Cool Earth from a nebular cloud is actually a proven fact due to scientific experimentation of Silver Isotopes, Zircon Crystals, Comet testing, and Meteorite tests.
Therefore, I conclude that the Biblical explanation holds much mor than what you guys told me in the beginning that the Bible can never be reconciled with what we know about the Origins of the Universe.
Now lets continue
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #168 on: July 12, 2018, 08:06:34 AM »
let me give you a taste of what I will expect you to explain when you tell me about dating techniques on the age of Humans.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

But before we go there, I want you to see where your science got their Nebulae Theory from.
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Online Munch

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #169 on: July 12, 2018, 08:08:49 AM »
Gotta give him one bit of credit, he don't quit.

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #170 on: July 12, 2018, 08:11:23 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Gotta give him one bit of credit, he don't quit.
Munch appreciated!
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #171 on: July 12, 2018, 08:40:08 AM »
Good, to end off the day, I will now reveal my source of where I found the Nebular Theory.

Once I found that the Biblical description of Genesis was the same of what science presented, I thought it can not be a co incidence.
This really made me go on a search on why this is so close to each other. Obviously something crossed wires, and ended up the way it is.

By accident, I one day read an old publication of Readers Digest, where an article actually said that the Origins of the Universe was originally postulated by Immanuel Kant in 1755. The writer also said, that Laplace in 1805 presented a counter proposition to Napoleon, that removed any reference to a Creator. This was the theory where every object in the Solar System popped out of the Solar collection of matter, and became planets. In the early 20th century this theory was proven wrong, due to the speed of the Sun on it's axis, and by conservation of energy calculations, Laplace' theory was discarded.
The Author then continued and said that the only viable theory on the Origins of the Universe, was the Nebular Theory of Emmanuel Kant, due to the discoveries made by Hubble with the Mount Wilson telescope in 1925. It was discovered that everything on Kant's proposition that there are uncountable galaxies, with billions of stars, nebulous clouds where stars and planets are born, a central point in Galaxies, black holes, a original point of origins for all this matter, and hundreds of other proposals proven correct.
When I saw this article, I decided to hunt this theory down, and eventually bought a publication on internet.
You can download a PDF here.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I did not stop here, but wanted to know who this man was.
It turned out that he was a great philosopher, but also a Biblical Greek and Hebrew student of theology!
As I read what he wrote, I discovered his source of the Nebular Theory.
Genesis!
OK, so now that I established the source of the Nebular theory, the Bible, I wondered how it became science, and how Atheists uses the Nebular Theory as evidence that the Bible is wrong!

What a paradox!!!
Atheists uses the Bible to prove the Bible is wrong with science that came out of the Bible!!
LOL!

Now, this was the ONE THING that made me realize that there is much more to the Bible than just the age old accusation that it is a man made myth.

I think the next thing we must speak about is the dating of Life on earth.
Why, not because I was thrown with this claim as evidence of my theory in jeopardy, but because this was the one thing that followed in my investigation that I had to unravel.
True, If life isolder than 6 000 years, the Bible is incorrect due to the Genealogical chronology it supplies.

But this for tomorrow.

Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Offline trdsf

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #172 on: July 12, 2018, 10:09:58 AM »
I'll get to a point by point cleanup of your reply this weekend; no time to do it during work and I have tickets for live shows tonight and tomorrow.

But answer me one thing with one straight yes or no: Mousetrap, do you accept the fact that humans and animals have existed for longer than 6,000 years?
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #173 on: July 12, 2018, 10:47:43 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'll get to a point by point cleanup of your reply this weekend; no time to do it during work and I have tickets for live shows tonight and tomorrow.

But answer me one thing with one straight yes or no: Mousetrap, do you accept the fact that humans and animals have existed for longer than 6,000 years?
A straight No.
But do allow me to elaborate my answer, else it is an incrimination of my person.
This is the only factor, (please note not a fact), that I have a problem with.

after investigating the relation between the Nebular Theory, and Biblical origins of it, I had to rethink the biggest contradiction between accepted scientific claims of human existence of 1.5 Million years, (Laetoli footprints) and life forms dated to hundreds of millions years, and the Biblical description of 6 000 years.

I asked myself how does one find out if life was pre 6 000 years?
If it is true, then I have evidence that the Bible is incorrect.

this was teh methodology I decided to follow.
1. Find out id the Bible really claim the age of humans as 6 000 years, or can it be millions.
2. Does the Bible say Plants and Animals are older than 6 000 years, or can this be placed at hundreds of millions, even a Billion or so?
3. How do we know if a certain artifact is evidence of pre 6 millennia?
4. What scientific testing exists to show the age of Life?
5. How does it work?

I went on the assumption that any experimental test devised by science to test the age of any dead organism must be correct.
I also decided that if I would not find an explanation, I will still continue to evaluate the Bible more authoritative than when I simply discarded it as nonsensical.

Well, what I found was not only interesting, but again had many a Bsc thinking on what they claimed as cast in concrete.
The reason is that I do not allow theories, or change of scientific facts to distort what is visible on the table.

I think you will also like what I found, then you can make up your own mind on speculations made by Atheist scientists on whether they create straw men arguments, or if they really dug into all the information at hand.
See you tomorrow..
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #174 on: July 12, 2018, 11:13:31 AM »
"The reason is that I do not allow theories"

We're not speaking the same language.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #175 on: July 12, 2018, 11:24:10 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"The reason is that I do not allow theories"

We're not speaking the same language.

Oh, don't tell me. He thinks that scientific theories are just unsupported guesses, and those theories turn into laws when they're proven right.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #176 on: July 12, 2018, 11:30:40 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
and you then continue to stay on your point of view, even though it is not what the latest observational science proved.
Have you asked any real scientist what the body of scientific evidence supports? Have you read any real peer-review papers? Do you know how to interpret those papers?

No? Then I don't see how you could know what "the latest observational science" has proved. I do actually keep up on the state of what the consensus of science currently says on the matter because this stuff interests me intensely. There is no way that you have the jump on me.

Quote
Please note, your scientific explanation is outdated and should rather incorporate what science now discovered, and not reflect what some "Theory" you were taught that has no substance.
Your nebular hypothesis is older than the planetesimal hypothesis, so don't you dare talk to me about using old outdated explanations. The beginnings of the solar system and the origin of the Earth is complicated, such that no one simple statement of any theory is likely to be wholely correct. It's likely explanation that finally takes form is going to be a nuanced thing that incorporates many aspects.

Quote
Therefore, your Hadean theory is destroyed, as science now knows.
The Hadean theory and the planetesimal theory are not the same. Without a primordial melting event, you can't get the majority of the iron and other heavy elements to the center of the earth, period. They just don't have the motility otherwise, which means that without a primordial melting, you have a hard time explaining why the Earth's crust is so iron-poor.

Quote
the Earth could not have been a boiling piece of magma, that solidified in a rock, that received water from comets, that eroded the Earth into a muddy entity, all that in 100 million years.
This is what the latest scientists are saying when they found the Zircon and Silver Ion evidence.
Not only in Australia, but these experiments are now done on over 30 areas of the Earth where Zircon and silver Ions are tested. Also evidence from comets and meteorites proves that the nebulous cloud from which the Earth, planets and moon was formed, was Ice and Dust.
No, no it does not. The zircons formed more than 100 million years after the Earth is thought to have initially coalesced. The zircons can't tell you if the Earth was a molten sea before that time because its their formation that records the condition on the Earth. You can have a Earth that started completely molten, cooled quickly to ordinary temperatures (100 million years is sufficient for that), and have those zircons form in a relatively cool environment. The zircons are categorically NOT evidence that the Earth was not initially melted; they formed too late to tell you that.

Again, you need a primordial melting event to deplete the crust of its iron. If there was no primordial melting, you have a hard time explaining why the crust is so iron poor. You need a theory of formation that explains BOTH the zircons AND the iron poor crust, and without a primordial heating, you can't explain the later. An Earth that cools quickly from a primordial melting, and zircons forming afterwards, does explain both.

And again, the silver ion data do not say that the Earth began soaking in water; your own reference characterizes only a "small amount" of volitiles were necessary to explain all of the water on Earth. The mass of the ocean is less than a thousanth that of the Earth, so the characterization of the Earth as a bone dry rock is actually still pretty true. The 15% accumulated in the "wet bombardment" your article references was not pure water, let alone liquid water. It was still mostly rock, owing to the fact that the earth is still less than a thousanth by mass of bulk liquid water — no matter what, the rest of that 15% of mass accreted in that "wet bombardment" must be something other than water. Further, your own article doesn't claim that the water was in the form of liquid or even solid water; in astrophysical and geological contexts, the word "water" doesn't necessarily mean either unless specified as such. It can mean (and given what is written in the article, likely does means) water bound up in hydrides.

As an example of a hydride, gypsum is 23.6% by weight water, yet looking at it, you wouldn't suspect it. It's basically what commercial blackboard chalk is made out of. (If anyone still remembers blackboard chalk.) Cook 100 g of gypsum above 250°C and you get 23.4 g of water and 75.6 g of anhydrite.

The initial protoplanetary disk was about 99% hydrogen and helium, which are gasses. Every other substence that the solar system is made out of, including water, lives in that remaining 1%. A ton of hydrogen and helium is pulled just as hard by gravity as a ton of any other material — in an unaltered protoplanetary disk, most of the accreted material would be hydrogen and helium, the majority components of gas giants. It also happens to be the majority components of stars, like our sun. (Triva: Helium got its name because it was first found in the sun by its Frienhoffer lines.) Thus, if it was present in any great quantity when the Earth formed, Earth would be a gas giant.

It isn't. You need a theory that explains BOTH the silver ions AND the fact that the Earth is not a gas giant. A bright young sun coupled to an inital melting of the Earth does explain both. The silver ion data doesn't say that the water in the "wet bombardment" was liquid. Thus, a primordial melting is not out of the question. The only thing it proves it that the later accretion contained more water (in various forms, including hydrides) than expected, but it was still very little water — not even remotely enough to make a mudball.

So, TL;DR, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. The zircons and silver ion data DO NOT contradict anything I have said. A primordial melting with quick cooling is compatible with both observations. A primordial melting and a bright young sun, however, explains critical features of the Earth and the solar system that you have yet to explain in any other way.

Quote
Your 'Theory' of an impact on earth with Thea, is a myth and an effort by pseudo scientists that want to publish their theories without any support of physical evidence. I would suggest you question your sources a bit more before accepting what you like.
I have read the current science and do question those sources. Your sources amount to arguing over whether Napoleon ate eggs or toast on the morning of Waterloo. They are details that need explaining, but only imply a modification to the theory of Theia and not a complete refutation.

Without a giant impactor, you have a hard time explaining why the moon is so big, and why its plane of revolution is only five or so degrees off from the eliptic, yet the axis of the earth's rotation is 23° off the eliptic. Crustal fissioning would require the moon's plane of revolution to be nearly parallel with the Earth's plane of rotation, and if the Earth was spinning fast enough to rip that monster off, how come it didn't rip itself apart completely. A capture is unlikely, because it doesn't explain why its plane of revolution bears resemblance to the eliptic, and it would have a different isotopic signature, and why the eccentricity of its orbit is so low. Co-coalescence doesn't work because the moon has too little iron, and would form from a slightly different population of planetessimals than the Earth and so wouldn't match isotopic signature either. Only a giant impactor really fits.

Further, the giant impactor is only the basic theory. It can be modified. You need a theory that can explan ALL of the Moon's observed properties, INCLUDING its unusual wetness (but not excessive; still < 1 ppm water), AND why its composition is so similar to the Earth's crust, AND it's unusual largeness, AND why its plane of revolution is so close to the eliptic but not to the rotation of the Earth. You have no explanation for that constellation of facts, but a modified giant impactor does. Especially if that giant impactor, Theia, was the "wet bombardment" that contributed the remaining upper 15% of the Earth's mass as aluded to in your silver ion paper. That it's a giant impactor theory explains the largeness of the moon and the fact that its orbit is coplanar to the eliptic. That it was the "wet bombardment" that contributed the last, and upper 15% of the Earth's material as well as the moon's material explains both the unusual wetness of the moon, and why it's isotopic signature is so close to the Earth's crust. Also, since this impact is what completes the earth's accretion, it is here our 4.54 billion year Age of the Earth clock starts, with our early zircons forming more than 100 million years later on a cool, water bearing Earth with a large Moon. We need that Supermoon to weather the Late Heavy Bombardment, after all.

TL;DR, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. The giant impactor theory beautifully explains a readily observed property of the moon that really can't be explained any other way, and with modification can explain all the little details as well, your crowings to the contrary notwithstanding.

Quote
grand, then the Biblical view that the Earth was a sphere turning on an axis on the First day is correct.
No, you said it was formless. And you said that the sun was dim when it was actually (and must be) shining brightly, and so the spinning earth would have day and night in a conventional sense.

Don't pee on my leg. Stop it. It's unsanitary, and no, it's not raining.

Quote
So, why did you miss out on the last sentence where the scientist made a conclution on his findings?
Or do you only read what you need, and ignore the rest?
"In some sense the physical conditions at the surface of the early Earth, as seen through the eyes of these time capsules from that period, was not that different from today," Watson says. "That is what is revolutionary about this idea."
Mmmmm
Please note the underlined: "as seen through the eyes of these time capsules from that period." The zircons can make no comment on the conditions of the Earth prior to their formation. Watson's quote MUST be taken in that context, and he obviously didn't expect anyone to take this as proof of conditions that his evidence obviously can't comment on.

So, once more, I ask you to stop peeing on my leg.

Quote
Again, now the Thea proto plannet hit the Earth when it was still a collection of soft material and water before the Earth solidified. So, it happened between zero years to 100 million years. The Earth was not yet solidified, and Thea hit the Earth and created a magma ocean,( that does not exist), and the moon accreted from the residue of the Earth (which was tested), but Thea disappeared with no evidence, and the Moon only collected matter from the Earth and nothing from this Thea planet (that was tested from Moon rock) that can not be traced, seen, found, tested, etc.
No. You've created this wierd mutant hybrid of my description and yours. But even if Theia collided with a wet earth as you describe, it wouldn't make a difference, because such collisions are best described in untold billions of gigatons of energy released as heat. The entire world nuclear arsenal has a yield of under ten gigatons, so this is a LOT of kaboom. Any water the Earth would have had would be flash vaporized in the event, leaving magma, because rock would absorb that heat too and melt.

The magma ocean didn't exist at the time of the formation of the zircons (and thus would be invisible to it). I know that's a subtle distinction for you, but it's important. The magma ocean must exist at one point in order to explain the fact that the crust is iron-poor (that's the principle evidence of its existence). Also, the physics of planet formation insist on it.

Theia didn't "disappear;" it so thoroughly intermixed with the Earth as to become indistinguishable from it. It's likely (if Theia really contributed 15% of the Earth's mass) that the entire crust was blasted away, got intermixed with Theia's material, only to reaccrete into both the moon and the Earth's crust. And before you squawk again about how the Moon would be part Theia, how could you tell that without a piece of Earth not intermixed with Theia to compare it to? It's fair to say that the Earth was as much formed from Theia (as well as Gaia, to give the body that was 85% of the Earth a name) as the Moon was.

Quote
And you have a problem with me believing in a God that can not be seen, tested etc?
I know it sounds hard to believe to you, who is literally making mountains out of molehills. What you are arguing is less than 1 part per million of water in the Moon. What you are arguing about is nagging little details about composition that a few simiple modifications to the prevailing theory explains neatly. You are complaining about me not being able to explain a few parts in a thousand of volitiles on the Earth when you can't explain the almost utter absence of hydrogen and helium that would outmass everything else in the protoplanetary disk by a ratio of 99:1.

You complain about the splinter in my eye, when you have a fuck-off huge log in yours.

Quote
Live with it man, your scientific theory is outdated and proven incorrect. even pure logic can see it is only theoretical propositions.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in this one, folks. But that's no surprise. When you can explain to me why your mudball earth collected water but not the OTHER volitiles that outmassed everything else by 99 times, then you get to talk to me about my "theoretical propositions."
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #177 on: July 12, 2018, 11:50:51 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, don't tell me. He thinks that scientific theories are just unsupported guesses, and those theories turn into laws when they're proven right.
Our science teachers have done such a poor job of teaching what that word means--theory--that most people think it is an 'educated' guess.  And for sure, the Mouse does. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #178 on: July 12, 2018, 11:54:17 AM »
One of my cousins swears he can't "think straight with shoes on". I asked  how that was different from any other time. He growled at me for using "big words". Mousetripe might know him.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Offline Hydra009

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #179 on: July 12, 2018, 12:10:33 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, it happened between zero years to 100 million years.
That's a hell of a range there.  Does this extreme vagueness permeate other areas of your life?

Meet my friend.  She's between 0 and 100 years old.
Yeah, just deliver that package to someplace between San Francisco and Miami.
Let's have a party!  I'm free sometime between now and 100 days from now.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk