Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)

[Cavebear]

Ignorance can be fixed, but willful ignorance cannot. There's a big difference between not knowing something and not being willing to know something. Mouse is the latter.

Why can't "willful ignorance" be fixed?  All it takes is a thought.

[SGOS]

Nice approach!  The doublethink was always there but I hadn't quite thought enough about their claim atheists "believe" on faith vs their own reasons for faith.  It seems obvious in retrospect, but I was always arguing against faith on the theists' parts.

I've always been aware of it, but never articulated it to myself.  I just passed it off as ignorant bullshit, and let it go at that.

[Cavebear]

I've always been aware of it, but never articulated it to myself.  I just passed it off as ignorant bullshit, and let it go at that.

Well, learn something new every day, right?  It's hard to get into the mind of 'the others', but the attempt is worth it sometimes.

[Mike Cl]

Ignorance can be fixed, but willful ignorance cannot. There's a big difference between not knowing something and not being willing to know something. Mouse is the latter.

Yeah, I hear ya.  But then, I think of willful ignorance as being stupid.  And mousey fits the bill.

[Cavebear]

Yeah, I hear ya.  But then, I think of willful ignorance as being stupid.  And mousey fits the bill.

Well, I certainly think that Mousetrap is ignorant.  I'm not sure about "willfully" though.  Did he have weird parents?  Did he grow up in a closed community?  Dis he suffer some trauma?  And of course, he just MIGHT be as dumb as a box of rocks in spite of having had sensible kind parents.  It can all happen. 

So maybe we have to guide this idiot along, LOL!  I've seen people change their minds.  Granted, not often. 

[Mike Cl]

Well, I certainly think that Mousetrap is ignorant.  I'm not sure about "willfully" though.  Did he have weird parents?  Did he grow up in a closed community?  Dis he suffer some trauma?  And of course, he just MIGHT be as dumb as a box of rocks in spite of having had sensible kind parents.  It can all happen. 

So maybe we have to guide this idiot along, LOL!  I've seen people change their minds.  Granted, not often.

Can you point to a single post that mouse has made where he changed his mind or indicated he would even entertain such a thing?  How about one where he actually answered a specific question rather than just dodge the issue to keep on rambling about his stupid point of view?

[Cavebear]

Can you point to a single post that mouse has made where he changed his mind or indicated he would even entertain such a thing?  How about one where he actually answered a specific question rather than just dodge the issue to keep on rambling about his stupid point of view?

Of course not.  But when debating, I always try to remember that there are people who read but don't post.  THEY are the ones who can be engaged in what we say and might change their minds.  I'm not here to change Baruch's mind about religion, I'm not here to change PR's mind about almost anything, and (apparently) I'm not going to changes Munch's mind about gender identity.

But there are people reading these posts who are not so certain of their opinions about various subjects.  Who may chime in or not.  How may just think, "OK, right". 

We are more the proposers of ideas than the resolvers of them. 

[Mike Cl]

Of course not.  But when debating, I always try to remember that there are people who read but don't post.  THEY are the ones who can be engaged in what we say and might change their minds.  I'm not here to change Baruch's mind about religion, I'm not here to change PR's mind about almost anything, and (apparently) I'm not going to changes Munch's mind about gender identity.

But there are people reading these posts who are not so certain of their opinions about various subjects.  Who may chime in or not.  How may just think, "OK, right". 

We are more the proposers of ideas than the resolvers of them.

Good point(s).  Right on.................

[Cavebear]

Good point(s).  Right on.................

Wooly Crap, I'm a wholly mammoth.  I mean wooly mammoth.  Actually, I kinna liked be a saber tooth cat, but
I liked 'Ice Age and both those characters are good now.  I'm not sure I'll like what the next one will be.  If you know, don't tell me.

Now aside from that, thanks Mike Cl for the nice agreement.

[Baruch]

Nice approach!  The doublethink was always there but I hadn't quite thought enough about their claim atheists "believe" on faith vs their own reasons for faith.  It seems obvious in retrospect, but I was always arguing against faith on the theists' parts.

Faith = power of positive thinking + mythology.  Of course one can dispense with the mythology.  In that case ...
Arrogance = power of positive thinking only

[Mousetrap]

Comets formed beyond the frost line of the solar system.
.....    ......


Also, further:Pockets of ice, friend. Not exposed to the vacuum of space. This was not water on the surface of the comet, that melted from the sunlight. It was generated by the impact of a similar body. That should tell you one thing in particular that is very important: When things in space hit each other, they heat up.


It's as if you don't know and have no idea how to find out the answer. Fancy that.

Why do you take off as a rocket on something I explained in very simplistic methods.
I never said that the Earth formed by things that heat up when they hit each other.
My theory as described by Kant is that when the nebulous matter was still without any identifiable planets, moons, and a sun, it was still nothing more than Gas liquid and dust spread over a huge area larger than our solar system.
Following this, certain particles moved to each other and they created gravitational points, and collected more and more matter to end up in thissle balls.
These balls were Icy dust particles, and attracted other particles towards them, becoming proto-planets.
More of this dust and thistle balls were attracted to each other, and not as you think ot huge speeds crashing into each other, but with the ennergy it had in the original swirling mass of this nebulous cloud.
To think that the solar system had these huge rocks flying all over in a chaotic manner is simply not correct.
The planets accreted in a manner similar to a global snowstorm, (if we compare the snow with icy space dust,) and the Earth and planets grew to the size we have now.
True, there might have been large proto planets a few miles wide, that would have crashed into these planets we have today, but it would have had a negligent effect on the Planet itself seeing that the velocities of both Major and Minor planets were almost equal to each other, and can be compared with one baby proto planet landing on the bigger one.

No crashing and bashing as you suggest.
The impact will be negligent, to a factor of surface ice melting resulting in the space dust layering itself in strata.

Oh, yes, there will also be asteroids falling onto this proto planet, but it will not turn the original Ice Mud Earth into a hadean unit.
This is what the Nebular theory say, and if you do not like the recent discoveries I posted to you as evidence, I will accept that you are only argueing due to the fact that what science knows about the origins of the Universe, is too much of a Biblical taste to your liking.

Greetings

[Hakurei Reimu]

Why do you take off as a rocket on something I explained in very simplistic methods.
I never said that the Earth formed by things that heat up when they hit each other.

No, not things that just HAPPEN to heat up when they hit each other, it's that things DO heat up when they hit each other. Conservation of energy. The energy of that motion has to go somewhere, and it mostly goes into heat.

My theory as described by Kant is that when the nebulous matter was still without any identifiable planets, moons, and a sun, it was still nothing more than Gas liquid and dust spread over a huge area larger than our solar system.

Emphasis mine. There would be no substance in the liquid phase in your nebula, being that nothing with a sufficiently low vapor pressure to be liquid in vacuum is hot enough to be liquid yet. We don't see them in modern nebulae, and liquid water is not possible in the vacuum of space. And, yes, it would be a vacuum. Space is huge. Even the mass of the sun, spread out across the size of the solar system would be a billion times thinner than air â€" a very good vacuum.

Of course, Kant wasn't a physicist, so I can't really blame him. But we know better nowadays. Or should.

Following this, certain particles moved to each other and they created gravitational points, and collected more and more matter to end up in thissle balls.

Eh, no. Before reaching the planetesimal stage, gravitational attraction would not be the dominant force. Random collisions would dominate until they reach 1 km in diameter, and mostly stick to each other due to electromagnetic forces.

The thing is, Kant didn't have the benefit of modern computing to calculate the gravitational interactions of many many particles at once. Nor did he have the benefit of the slew of astronomical knowledge we have today. This multitude of gravitational points you speak about are not in evidence, not in the computer simulations, nor around the T Tauri stars that are the young stars we think our sun was once â€" they still have the thick dust clouds of thier primordial nebula, except now it's a protoplanetary disk. The center of the cloud is initially the only stable gravitational point. Others would be transitory at best.

So, the central star forms first. It starts shining as brightly as it ever does on the main sequence long before your nebula gets to making planetesimals.

These balls were Icy dust particles, and attracted other particles towards them, becoming proto-planets.

No, not much ice, at least in the inner solar system, due to that bright young star in the center. There is moisture trapped in the matrices of the various hydrous minerals that are in the dust, but that's about it. In the outer solar system, on the other hand, has an abundance of ices and the planetesimals could be composed of.

Yes, I said ices. Plural. Or did you not realize that the protoplanetary disk and its parent nebula contained more than one kind of ice (and gas)?

More of this dust and thistle balls were attracted to each other, and not as you think ot huge speeds crashing into each other, but with the ennergy it had in the original swirling mass of this nebulous cloud.
To think that the solar system had these huge rocks flying all over in a chaotic manner is simply not correct.
The planets accreted in a manner similar to a global snowstorm, (if we compare the snow with icy space dust,) and the Earth and planets grew to the size we have now.
True, there might have been large proto planets a few miles wide, that would have crashed into these planets we have today, but it would have had a negligent effect on the Planet itself seeing that the velocities of both Major and Minor planets were almost equal to each other, and can be compared with one baby proto planet landing on the bigger one.

No crashing and bashing as you suggest.
The impact will be negligent, to a factor of surface ice melting resulting in the space dust layering itself in strata.

Ah, so you DO think that the accretion of matter in planetary growth was a sedate, gentle affair. I suspected as much. However, as any space enthusiast would point out, things falling out of the sky land with a lot of kaboom.

Let's take a step back to the planetesimal stage. It's only at this stage when gravitational attraction starts becoming the dominant way these objects coalesce. And, yes, at first, the collisions are as gentle as you say.

At first.

But remember, as these things grow, their getting more and more massive, so their gravity wells are getting deeper and deeper. By the time they reach the protoplanetary stage, about the size and mass of Mercury (2,440 km radius, 3.285e23 kg mass), even beginning at rest at 5 planetary radi away from its center (9760 km above the surface), an object will pick up 3.8 km/s upon reaching the surface and hit with a whopping 7.22 MJ per kilogram of the object's mass. That's the equivalent of 1.7 kg of TNT going off for each kilogram of the object's mass. It only takes 3.342 MJ to vaporize 1 kg of ice starting from -100 °C, and about 3574.4 kJ to melt 1 kg of your typical stone starting from the same temperature. Water ice would instantly vaporize due to work heating, and stone would instantly melt for the same reason.

Yet, even though these things are actually hitting with quite a lot of speed, it would still take over 1 hour and 15 minutes for the object to fall from its starting position to the protoplanet's surface. It might look like a snowstorm from far away, but up close and personal it's a violent affair because of that damned gravitational well.

It only gets worse as the planet grows. The last 15% of the Earth's mass smacked into the growing Earth (Gaia) at 10.5 km/s minimum, a release of 55.78 MJ per kilogram of its mass, which equates to ~13 times its mass in TNT explosive yield. This is enough to melt the entire modern mass of the Earth (assuming rock) more than twice over.

Things as big as planets, even minor ones, cannot "land" on each other. They smash into each other, even if the smashing takes hours to play out. And they will be hot. Oh, boy, will they be hot.

So, no. No icy Earth for you. All you're getting is a molten Earth outgassing the primitive atmosphere.

Now, to be sure, it cools very quickly. One of the contentious periods of geophysics is when Lord Kelvin famously calculated that it would take a mere 20-50 million years for the planet to cool sufficiently to match thermodynamic observations. Of course, he was working from the assumption of no heat input from sources such as radioactivity, but it is a significant result. Earth can cool from this stage in plenty of time for the zircons to form on a cool, wet Earth more than a hundred million years later.

This is what the Nebular theory say, and if you do not like the recent discoveries I posted to you as evidence, I will accept that you are only argueing due to the fact that what science knows about the origins of the Universe, is too much of a Biblical taste to your liking.

No, it's too much of an UNPHYSICAL taste for my liking. I pointed out the problems with your hypothesis. Kant wasn't a physicist, and probably had no appreciation of orbital mechanics and just how fast things go in the solar system and how energetic things are when they collide. Things travel so fast that even small relative differences in speed translate into huge differences on the human scale. However, space is so big, that even traveling at these incredible speeds, it still takes a while for things to happen. It still takes a good hour for our object to lithobreak on Mercury, even though it hits like a mortar shell.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wooly Crap, I'm a wholly mammoth.  I mean wooly mammoth.  Actually, I kinna liked be a saber tooth cat, but
I liked 'Ice Age and both those characters are good now.  I'm not sure I'll like what the next one will be.  If you know, don't tell me.

Now aside from that, thanks Mike Cl for the nice agreement.

Meet the short-face   bear cat.(Those are 27" diag. monitors.)

[Hydra009]

This is what the Nebular theory say, and if you do not like the recent discoveries I posted to you as evidence, I will accept that you are only argueing due to the fact that what science knows about the origins of the Universe, is too much of a Biblical taste to your liking.

*looks at latest astronomy magazines with fellow atheists*
*all of us instantly notice how biblical the latest findings are and denounce modern astronomy*

[Mr.Obvious]

*looks at latest astronomy magazines with fellow atheists*
*all of us instantly notice how biblical the latest findings are and denounce modern astronomy*

I know, right?!

Totally ruined our Atheist Astronomers meetings.

AA will never be the same again.