View Full Version : The Hubble Tends to Validate the Bible


HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 06:34 AM
The hubble (bifocals and reading chart installed :) ) has shown us forming star systems in the Orion Nebula especially. Although there is controversy over the nature of the PROTOPlanetarYDisk's (Protoplyds), mine especially throwing sand in the wheel of discovery, classic physics would tell us that the planets are completely formed and, with the nebular light still present, even life could be forming on them PRIOR to the star's ignition. I have found no other religion, Koran, Confuscius or otherwise that gets that simple chronology correct. If I ever had my doubts, which I have at times, the Hubble and other space stationed telescopes have confirmed my belief in that book as the written word of God.

Other perspectives beyond what the telescopes see, is the "unseen;" the 5th Dimension as Kaluza-Klein dubs it. String theory rearranges all that along with many who advocate time travel. If someone believes in prophecy, they believe in time travel. Planck Time is an accepted basic unit of time based around the speed of the photon. If we can only take in less than 100 frames per second, a stream of photons generate millions of interstices between those frames. The unseen goes on forever.

cosmictraveler
02-16-12, 06:46 AM
classic physics would tell us that the planets are completely formed and, with the nebular light still present, even life could be forming on them PRIOR to the star's ignition

Nonsense I say, show me where you get this information from besides just making it up with your opinions, links please.

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 06:58 AM
Nonsense I say, show me where you get this information from besides just making it up with your opinions, links please.

I'm less than 20 posts, so links are verbotten for a few more.

Let me toss that back at you:

It is nonsense to say my post is nonsense. Show me where you get information that dismisses my so-called "nonsense." Besides, this area is wide open to opinion that would compare findings in the cosmos to belief and opinion.

cosmictraveler
02-16-12, 07:06 AM
I'm less than 20 posts, so links are verbotten for a few more.

Let me toss that back at you:

It is nonsense to say my post is nonsense. Show me where you get information that dismisses my so-called "nonsense." Besides, this area is wide open to opinion that would compare findings in the cosmos to belief and opinion.

In this forum it is up to the OP to provide the PROOF as to what they are presenting, not up to us to disprove the point. So please provide us with a link that proves your assertions or just say it is your opinion.

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 07:18 AM
I guess you'll have to wait till I reach that 20th post and my time allows... NOnetheless, there is no "proof" either way, only evidence of acretion disks and classic physics would support my argumant and tend to dismiss the other. If we leave out classic physics through some notion or proposition, then one guess is as good as the other.

I think this is post #18 for me, still, as I suggested, you are welcome to "go fetch." :)

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 07:19 AM
Oh... and please treat that Cheshire Cat for fleas and pin worms :D

cosmictraveler
02-16-12, 07:21 AM
I guess you'll have to wait till I reach that 20th post and my time allows... NOnetheless, there is no "proof" either way, only evidence of acretion disks and classic physics would support my argumant and tend to dismiss the other. If we leave out classic physics through some notion or proposition, then one guess is as good as the other.

I think this is post #18 for me, still, as I suggested, you are welcome to "go fetch." :)

It is very simple for you to just copy and paste a link here so if you wouldn't mind providing that for us all to see. Just right click on the properties of the link and then copy it then post it here.

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 08:06 AM
It is very simple for you to just copy and paste a link here so if you wouldn't mind providing that for us all to see. Just right click on the properties of the link and then copy it then post it here.

It's very simple for you to actually read and if you don't know the words, to look them up such as "I have less than 20 post..."

I can see you hijack threads with off topics and insults. Do people ignore you a lot? I'm assumiing you are younger than say 25...

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/star/protoplanetary_disk/pr2008039b/

There's your link with much more available.

We know God gave Moses, in Genesis, the view that first came the heavens and the earth (Hyperspace and matter) then light (Photons and the electromagnetic spectrum) and later ignited the sun and perhaps even attracted the moon into Earth's orbit. (Distinction in earth and Earth.)

Now can we get to discussing the physics of what that protoplyd is telling us?

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 08:09 AM
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/star/protoplanetary_disk/pr1999005k/

another beauty! The star CLEARLY has not yet ignited.

Rhaedas
02-16-12, 08:21 AM
So you're claiming that one of the brighter stars in the night sky hasn't ignited yet?

spidergoat
02-16-12, 09:19 AM
Yeah, except Job contradicts it, as one would expect if the Bible were a collection of myths:


4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Job38

This implies that the stars came first, as they were already present when God laid the foundations of the Earth.

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 09:23 AM
So you're claiming that one of the brighter stars in the night sky hasn't ignited yet?

The one in post #9 is a depiction of plasma jets. I see no masked bright star. The one in post #8 appears to be masked and the apparent planetoid as well. Likely not the best example, but it showed that we have Hubble shots of planets being formed around other stars.

BTW... it would help if you quoted which example you are referring to. :)

Captain Kremmen
02-16-12, 09:25 AM
I can see you hijack threads with off topics and insults. Do people ignore you a lot? I'm assumiing you are younger than say 25...




He wishes he was 25.

Rhaedas
02-16-12, 09:27 AM
Does the bible explain how you can use a coronagraph to block a star's light so you can better see material around the star?

Thoreau
02-16-12, 09:34 AM
Another allergorical thread... yay!

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 09:42 AM
He wishes he was 25.

No. I'm happy to have my frontal lobes fully developed instead of like half chilled jello... :D

It's nice to have 40 years of study in my field of theoretical astrophysics to inject into my imagination.

I imagine CK and CT wish they had that... :D

cosmictraveler
02-16-12, 09:43 AM
Show me where you get information that dismisses my so-called "nonsense."

From your own link..........

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/star/protoplanetary_disk/pr2008039b/

Observations taken 21 months apart by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys' coronagraph show that the object is moving along a path around the star and therefore is gravitationally bound to it. The planet is 10.7 billion miles from the star, or about 10 times the distance of the planet Saturn from the sun.

Fomalhaut is burning hydrogen at such a furious rate through nuclear fusion that it will burn out in only 1 billion years, which is 1/10th the lifespan of our sun. This means there is little opportunity for advanced life to evolve on any habitable worlds the star might possess.

In 2004, the coronagraph in the High Resolution Camera on Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys produced the first-ever resolved visible-light image of a large dust belt surrounding Fomalhaut.

Fomalhaut (α PsA, α Piscis Austrini, Alpha Piscis Austrini) is the brightest star in the constellation Piscis Austrinus and one of the brightest stars in the sky. Fomalhaut can be seen low in the southern sky in the northern hemisphere in fall and early winter evenings. Near latitude 50˚N, it sets around the time Sirius rises, and does not reappear until Antares sets. Its name derives from Arabic فم الحوت (fum al-ḥawt), meaning "mouth of the [Southern] Fish".

This is a class A star on the main sequence approximately 25 light-years (7.7 pc) from Earth. Since 1943, the spectrum of this star has served as one of the stable anchor points by which other stars are classified.[5] It is classified as a Vega-like star that emits excess infrared radiation, indicating it is surrounded by a circumstellar disk.


I can see you hijack threads with off topics and insults. Do people ignore you a lot? I'm assumiing you are younger than say 25...


Insults? Under 25?:rolleyes:

So your assesment about a planet forming without a sun is not shown, it does show there is a sun there and has been for a very long time.:p

spidergoat
02-16-12, 09:47 AM
The Bible doesn't even validate the Bible.

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 09:47 AM
Does the bible explain how you can use a coronagraph to block a star's light so you can better see material around the star?

No. I think I did that in my last response to your last response, save for mentioning the coronagraph.

The Bible tells us that knowledge is among the greatest of all gifts. Albert Einstein told us that imagination was more important than knowledge. I have both, otherwise I'd be unable to connect what the coronagraph tells us is going on behind the mask.

BTW... in photography we used to call the various types of masks used by the coronagraph "Dodgers and Vignettes." ;)

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 12:58 PM
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/star/protoplanetary_disk/pr1999005k/

another beauty! The star CLEARLY has not yet ignited.

This is to clear up the question I asked about which post was being menioned where someone failed to answer. This shot is clearly void of the dodger mask from the coronagraphic view. It is obvious why. There is no ignited star, yet planty is going on in the central area as well. There was no need to mask the star.

This is only one, but even a year ago there were only a handful of these shots where planets are present in the shot. I'm sure more shots void of an ignited star prior to the acretion within the disk will unveil themselves.

spidergoat
02-16-12, 01:07 PM
The nebula is still the product of a star, so stars came first.

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 01:16 PM
The nebula is still the product of a star, so stars came first.

Possibly. The hydrogen gas clouds in intergalactic space suggest elementary acretion, as in gravitons (if they truly exist) photons, Higgs fields, perhaps even "tempotrons" (my own speculated species) came long before stars. There is no perfect proof that all nebulae come from 1st generation stars.

Good point though.;)

Yazata
02-16-12, 01:25 PM
I can see you hijack threads with off topics and insults. Do people ignore you a lot? I'm assumiing you are younger than say 25...

It's not a good idea to barge onto a discussion forum and immediately start insulting the people who post there. It gets you off to a bad start.

spidergoat
02-16-12, 01:32 PM
Possibly. The hydrogen gas clouds in intergalactic space suggest elementary acretion, as in gravitons (if they truly exist) photons, Higgs fields, perhaps even "tempotrons" (my own speculated species) came long before stars. There is no perfect proof that all nebulae come from 1st generation stars.

Good point though.;)

But are planets made of hydrogen?

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 01:38 PM
But are planets made of hydrogen?

Most of them we can probe at close range seem to have a lot of it in one form or another. So do stars.

Ask yourself this: What is the easiest to beat into a ball: Elementary particles or a star? Another way of asking it might be what flows down a river easier: A rock or a flower? A grain of sand of a microbe?

spidergoat
02-16-12, 01:41 PM
But doesn't life require the heavier elements?

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 01:54 PM
But doesn't life require the heavier elements?

That depends on the definition of life. Would a lifeform existing in hypospace or hyperspace be composed of the same building blocks as in photon space? On the other hand, could a lifeform from this photon space dimension exist within hypospace or hyperspace and return intact to photon space?

Yazata
02-16-12, 01:57 PM
The hubble (bifocals and reading chart installed :) ) has shown us forming star systems in the Orion Nebula especially... classic physics would tell us that the planets are completely formed and, with the nebular light still present, even life could be forming on them PRIOR to the star's ignition.

That needs a great deal of additional argument.


I have found no other religion, Koran, Confuscius or otherwise that gets that simple chronology correct.

I'm assuming that you're referring to Genesis 1. I think that it's going to require a great deal of twisting and turning to square the Genesis chronology with that of scientific cosmology.


If I ever had my doubts, which I have at times, the Hubble and other space stationed telescopes have confirmed my belief in that book as the written word of God.

That's probably true for you, autobiographically.

But it sounds like a tremendous non-sequitur to me. How does one get from a fanciful layman's interpretation of some Hubble photographs to confidence that the Bible is "the written word of God"?

(Traditional Buddhist cosmology speaks of countless world-systems. I don't see that idea in the Hebrew creation mythology. Having said that, I don't interpret that as evidence that Buddhist tradition derives from an omniscient source. I think that it's more likely to just be a lucky ancient guess.)

(Quotations from NIV.)


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, β€œLet there be light, and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.

7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.

8 God called the vault sky. And there was evening, and there was morning the second day.

9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so.

16 God made two great light the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,

18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening, and there was morningβ€"the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

22 God blessed them and said, Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.

23 And there was evening, and there was morning the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind. And it was so.

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, β€œLet us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.


Thoreau
02-16-12, 02:44 PM
WTF? Are we getting into the chemistry of creationism???

gmilam
02-16-12, 03:14 PM
I'm less than 20 posts, so links are verbotten for a few more.

Let me toss that back at you:

It is nonsense to say my post is nonsense. Show me where you get information that dismisses my so-called "nonsense." Besides, this area is wide open to opinion that would compare findings in the cosmos to belief and opinion.
Crank or Troll? Only time will tell.

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 04:33 PM
That needs a great deal of additional argument.



I'm assuming that you're referring to Genesis 1. I think that it's going to require a great deal of twisting and turning to square the Genesis chronology with that of scientific cosmology.



That's probably true for you, autobiographically.
But it sounds like a tremendous non-sequitur to me. How does one get from a fanciful layman's interpretation of some Hubble photographs to confidence that the Bible is "the written word of God"?(Traditional Buddhist cosmology speaks of countless world-systems. I don't see that idea in the Hebrew creation mythology. Having said that, I don't interpret that as evidence that Buddhist tradition derives from an omniscient source. I think that it's more likely to just be a lucky ancient guess.)

(Quotations from NIV.)


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, β€œLet there be light, and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.

7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.

8 God called the vault sky. And there was evening, and there was morning the second day.

9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so.

16 God made two great light the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,

18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening, and there was morningβ€"the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

22 God blessed them and said, Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.

23 And there was evening, and there was morning the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind. And it was so.

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, β€œLet us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.


How does one get from a 5th Grader's insult attempting level to a misconception of the definition of non-sequitur?

That makes no sense either. Last time I checked my name wasn't Moses.

Now that's impressive. A 5th grade level comparing Bhudism to String Theory, which fails itself by Susskind's own internal conflict where a multiverse is concerned.

Maybe lucky we saw it soon enough to dismiss it.






Now let's get to your "task.":


(Quotations from NIV.)


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I covered that.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

::: I thought you were an expert on string theory. Just because the "father of string theory" contradicts himself, doesn't mean the Father of two time-space dimensions arising out of String and kaluza-Klein theory has to follow along some stuffshirt professor's path.

3 And God said, β€œLet there be light, and there was light.

::: Are you bringing this up to verify a material dimension based upon photons exists or to herald the Dude that spoke it into existence?

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

::: Let's see... normal photon material and dark matter.

5 God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day.

::: You have a better naming system? God said He originallyresided with His face pressed against the deep. Looking at that deep endless void must certainly be exciting. So now we have glowing particles everywhere inside the heavens and they are disappearing into those dark areas, dark matter, dark truncated singularities, etc.

6 And God said, Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.

::: Actually the NIV I have says "expanse." So we have Hyperspace in tachyons trying to interact with photons and worse yet Tardyons. I suppose you can call a quantum leap a "vault" of sorts...

7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.

::: I was impressed with speaking light into existence. That was a real innovative idea and the technolgy to do it had to be nothing short off gnarly.

8 God called the vault sky. And there was evening, and there was morning the second day.

::: Sounds like enough work for the architect's second day. First He presses His own paperspace, then He puts in the wash for the background. I usually let my renderings dry overnight before adding more layers and geometry. Great artist I'd say.

9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so.

::: Now we are getting into those intergalactic hydrogen clouds being beaten into submission to become heavier elements, compounds, spinning stellar matter and planetary matter. And "Yes." it was so...

10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.

::: Of course you realize we are talking earth as in protoplanetary material, not Earth, as in Terra Firma, Planet Earth, 3rd rock from Sol, etcetera...

11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so.

::: We have light. We have water. God likely rplicated His basic DNA into those protoplyds, added some Mg for plant porphyrins. And plants are, so "Yes." it was so... Some land near the water body was cool enough to grow plants...

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

::: DNA does that... Now I do like life, so "Yes." it was good...

13 And there was evening, and there was morning the third day.

::: So galaxies are actually in motion by this point. So animation was going on. God probably was already envisioning Walt Disney, pre schoolers and reasonably elloquent 5th graders asking old hippy physicists to write their essay for them...

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

::: My NIV doesn't read sacred times... nonetheless, the stars are acreting and grouping into galaxies. Funny coincidence, the stars finally ignite, blowing outward the radii of these protoplanetary disks leaving debris and ice to some equivalent of a Kyper Belt.

15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so.

::: Stars do put out a lot of light. Enough in fact to overtake the sattering of the gray dust on at least our (Earth's) moon... enough to reflect onto a planet at night. Funny none of that would be there yet in that one protoplyd exmaple where the Hubble doesn't block out the star's light because it hasn't ignited at that point.

16 God made two great light the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

:::We've been over that. I imagine your teacher cracks a ruler on the desk to wake everyone up and reiterates to make certain everyone caught that...

17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,

::: See what happens if you aren't listening the first time around?

18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

::: Nothing but the best for my pup :D

19 And there was evening, and there was morningβ€"the fourth day.

::: Easy money...
20 And God said, Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.

::: The DNA evolves and the food chain begins...

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


::: Land still contracting, volcanic, hot... The water and the air would be the first viable places for advanced animate life to be teeming...
22 God blessed them and said, Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.

::: So the land cooled enough not to burn their feet and "The Bird" was now the Word... :D

23 And there was evening, and there was morning the fifth day.


::: Teachers usually are a bit repetetive for study areas that will be on the end of the year test...
24 And God said, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind. And it was so.

::: Now.. here's the question for you: "What formed first: Mg or Fe? If the earth is barely cooled enough to produce plants, how would the porphyrins for animate life evolve first in the air and the seas?

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

::: This will be on the test at the end of the year
26 Then God said, β€œLet us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

::: Next question for you. What lifeforms have triple helix DNA? Yes. A study question... It will be on the test.
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

::: If God exists in hypospace, what might that "image" represent? (Yep. On the test...)

28 God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.


::: And primitive tools were on THAT test...
Now, young Yazata, you have much of your homework assignment done for you, but not the whole thing. I suggest you re-write it in your own paraphrase.

What makes me think you are a school child? Even if you are a slow 9th grader, most 5th graders can do essay assignments involving all that where their parents can't. An adult has been dumbed down a lot unless he or she is very resilient, yet they've supposedly been taught manners if they have a good set of parents and aren't as quick to insult someone for kicks or to make themselves look smart.

Most college students insist on acting as graceful and sophisiticated as possible. High school students are interested in the opposite sex... remember He made them male and female? The 5th grader's frontal lobes are no more developed than the 18 year old's, but the parietal and occipital lobes are ready to take in as much as possible. Such is why 5th graders usually outsmart their parents.

Your error is you picked an old hippy who has studied astrophysics for 40 years. Now go finish your homework...

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 04:38 PM
It's not a good idea to barge onto a discussion forum and immediately start insulting the people who post there. It gets you off to a bad start.

But of course it's okay to insult the new guy and hijack his threads...

You do realize after my doing your homework, I'll likely ignore you for the most part unless you start acting like an adult...

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 04:40 PM
WTF? Are we getting into the chemistry of creationism???

That's interesting. I brought chemistry into answering yazata's tirade..

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 04:43 PM
Crank or Troll? Only time will tell.

Fascinating.

Maybe a 3rd possibility? Neither.

The topic is not about the poster. It is about the topic. Thus I'll pretend I don't see off topic stuff from here forward.

Rhaedas
02-16-12, 06:49 PM
This is to clear up the question I asked about which post was being menioned where someone failed to answer.

Interesting. I didn't think it was needed to hang around and make sure you knew which of two links that you yourself posted I was referring to. And yet you didn't get the right one. Even with Cosmic's more specific answer.

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 07:39 PM
Interesting. I didn't think it was needed to hang around and make sure you knew which of two links that you yourself posted I was referring to. And yet you didn't get the right one. Even with Cosmic's more specific answer.

It probably would have been a good idea. Then you could have amalgamated the entire series of posts that led to CosmicTraveler's trolling and you would have known I did not refer to that particular selection as an example of a preignited star and the disk, but to the site itself. You also would have seen the one I blatantly pointed out as having a luminous acretion disk, yet no ignition in the star.

That's been sidestepped by all wanting to make the thread about the poster instead of the topic.

The discription of that one says as I did: It is a plasma jet

ABOUT THIS IMAGE:
DG Tauri B appears very similar to HH 30, with jets and a central dark lane with reflected starlight at its edges. In this WFPC2 image, the dust lane is much thicker than seen in HH 30, indicating that dusty material is still in the process of falling onto the hidden star and disk. The bright jet extends a distance of 90 billion miles away from the system.

Object Name: DG Tauri B

Trolls generally accent something out of context and diminish the real evidence.

HectorDecimal
02-16-12, 07:52 PM
ABOUT THIS IMAGE:
A NASA Hubble Space Telescope picture of three protoplanetary disks, called "proplyds" in the Orion Nebula, a star-forming region 1,500 light-years away.

Each proplyd appears as thick disk with a hole in the middle where the cool star is located. Radiation from nearby hot stars "boils off" material from the disk's surface. This material is then blown back into a comet-like tail by a stellar "wind" of radiation and subatomic particles streaming from the hot stars.

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/star/protoplanetary_disk/pr1992029c/

Funny... these fellows don't have an ignited star, but the pro(to)plyds are even described as having a "cool star" in the center.

I guess that really shoots the "star ignites after the planets are formed" chronology right in the butt doesn't it.

Back to the OP topic... :)

Balerion
02-16-12, 10:34 PM
Fascinating.

Maybe a 3rd possibility? Neither.

The topic is not about the poster. It is about the topic. Thus I'll pretend I don't see off topic stuff from here forward.

Syne's little brother.

We need better moderation here. How does this troll make it 62 posts?

leopold
02-16-12, 11:21 PM
We know God gave Moses, in Genesis, the view that first came the heavens and the earth . . .
okay, how do we know this?

you DO realize in order to make such a statement requires proof of a god do you not?

good luck.

spidergoat
02-17-12, 12:22 AM
Syne's little brother.

We need better moderation here. How does this troll make it 62 posts?

Calling someone a troll is against the rules. Members should be considered legitimate as long as they are active (not banned).

aaqucnaona
02-17-12, 12:24 AM
I'm less than 20 posts, so links are verbotten for a few more.

Let me toss that back at you:

It is nonsense to say my post is nonsense. Show me where you get information that dismisses my so-called "nonsense." Besides, this area is wide open to opinion that would compare findings in the cosmos to belief and opinion.

No, its completely valid to call your post nonsense because -

1. Its an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence.
2. You gave no evidence whatsoever.
3. The burden of proof was on you and you didn't shoulder it, hence your statement deserves no respect until it can be substantiated.

Welcome to sciforums.

aaqucnaona
02-17-12, 12:30 AM
Possibly. The hydrogen gas clouds in intergalactic space suggest elementary acretion, as in gravitons (if they truly exist) photons, Higgs fields, perhaps even "tempotrons" (my own speculated species) came long before stars. There is no perfect proof that all nebulae come from 1st generation stars.

Good point though.;)

Nebulae are by definition systemically constrained to being the aftermath of a star - higher elemets and other leftovers from the first generation star can only arise through the supernova of the star - a mere gas cloud as you suggest would never have those things unless the cloud itself was an remnant of the said supernova.

aaqucnaona
02-17-12, 12:46 AM
Although there is controversy

Then wait for a resolution before jumping to conclusions.


mine especially throwing sand in the wheel of discovery,

Are you a cosmologist or astrologist?


classic physics would tell us that the planets are completely formed and

Substantiate please?


with the nebular light still present, even life could be forming on them PRIOR to the star's ignition.

Except that light is not the only qualifier for life. Light may not even be needed, a slowing reacting planet with enough size and chemicals might spawn life with a star at all.


I have found no other religion, Koran, Confuscius or otherwise that gets that simple chronology correct.

Even if it were correct for that system, you cannot call the chronology correct unless you have proof that this was the case for earth too.


If I ever had my doubts, which I have at times, the Hubble and other space stationed telescopes have confirmed my belief in that book as the written word of God.

Thats like an ant seeing a McD logo and saying - the signs in the sky have confirmed that M-man is the supreme being. All hail his bright red nose!
His friend can, at this point, easily say - what of all those other signs? How about all the problems inherent in your narrow, infantile and incredulous belief that M-man is actually the One based on little more than cherrypicking? How much vanity must you have to think that M-man, if he is indeed the One, cares about you - an insignificant ant in the middle of this massive city.


If someone believes in prophecy, they believe in time travel.

Future prediction is no more indicative of time travel than are past memories.


The unseen goes on forever.

No, the unseen you mention would only go on for the time it is observed, it would only be completely continous, such that no amount of slowing would reveal any frames.

About those ants - they arent the only ones having that discussion -

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l50/kdhart226/blog%20stuff/What-are-you-saying-My-book-doesnt-thrill-you-Dont-get-me-wrong-the-hook-is-great-It-just-didnt-take.jpg

aaqucnaona
02-17-12, 12:57 AM
We
know God gave Moses, in Genesis, the view that first came the heavens and the earth (Hyperspace and matter) then light (Photons and the electromagnetic spectrum) and later ignited the sun and perhaps even attracted the moon into Earth's orbit. (Distinction in earth and Earth.)

If there is a God, a bronze age myth/story book tells us about him about as much as Thor[the movie] tells us about astrobiology. If you KNOW that that is true, please do convince me - make some supportive claims, give evidence for them and put them together to make a case for the biblical God.

And oh yes, you need this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation

aaqucnaona
02-17-12, 01:28 AM
Fascinating.

Maybe a 3rd possibility? Neither.

The topic is not about the poster. It is about the topic. Thus I'll pretend I don't see off topic stuff from here forward.

I would have to go with you here. Its just that its been a while since our last fundamentalist/creationist. The only fish in the barrel we have are armchair pseudoscientists, and they [like Mister/Reiku] have mostly become better and more competent or they refrain from posting on those topics.

So you might get a few Ad Homs, don't mind 'em. But your ideas, may God help them.

HectorDecimal
02-17-12, 03:52 AM
okay, how do we know this?

you DO realize in order to make such a statement requires proof of a god do you not?

good luck.

Why? We can theorize quite realistically there is an element 138, even though the current theoreticals only number to 118 without first having proof that 117 can be stablized. We theorize singularities exist, even though we have no proof that a black hole is really just that. We call that stuff science. We can even theorize various ways the universe was originated and those qualify as science with no proof there ever was a big bang. In fact we can find many books inspired about that subject that has no proof, but to make a statement that may have easily have been said "God inspired Moses, an historically recorded member of the Hebrew race, by communicating to him through the 5th dimension..." is verbotten? Sounds like a human rights violation to me.

In fact, if you put "flame speaker" in a search, you'll find we can make sound come out of a flame by inserting an electrode inside it to ionize the outer gradient areas of the flame. I first saw that in Electronics Illustrated when I was about 12.

No. I don't need proof God exists to make such a statement. Neither do I need any more proof that Moses existed than we do that Aristotle or Caiphas existed.

I do appreciate your adherence to the topic, though :)

HectorDecimal
02-17-12, 04:03 AM
Calling someone a troll is against the rules. Members should be considered legitimate as long as they are active (not banned).

Thanx, SpiderGoat.

It may be needed to remind others that Hector Decimal is not the topic. Bob Dole isn't the topic either. The topic involves those Hubble shots that depict light and screting planets void of an ignited star. Some of those shots, although mesmerizingly beautiful, are not protoplyds or proplyds, rather already igintied stars that are masked to reveal planets. Thos demonstrate the presence of other "earth's" potentially.

"...and I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first earth had passed away..." sounds like someone was envisioning space travel. Maybe there are self-destructive trolls out there who don't want to see the rest of us make it that far... ;)

HectorDecimal
02-17-12, 04:15 AM
No, its completely valid to call your post nonsense because -

1. Its an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence.
2. You gave no evidence whatsoever.
3. The burden of proof was on you and you didn't shoulder it, hence your statement deserves no respect until it can be substantiated.

Welcome to sciforums.

Nonsense! :)

1. Failed by comparison and by identification as being based upon mere semantics.

( Gen. 1:3-16 are not extraordinary claims, they are based on someone's ancient vision, no different that Einstein's vision of relativity and light being bent by gravity. Einstein's vision was evidenced in 1919. Gen. has only recently been evidenced by the provided Hubble shots (and not the first one used to introduce the page.))

2. Failed. (See 1. Try rereading the whole thread. :) )

3. Nonsense. Failed. (See 1. and I really recommend rereading the thread... :) )


Pleased to meet you.

HectorDecimal
02-17-12, 04:19 AM
Nebulae are by definition systemically constrained to being the aftermath of a star - higher elemets and other leftovers from the first generation star can only arise through the supernova of the star - a mere gas cloud as you suggest would never have those things unless the cloud itself was an remnant of the said supernova.

Prove that. I've never seen anything that takes this beyond an educated guess. There are evidences that TEND to prove this is ONE system of creation.

HectorDecimal
02-17-12, 04:27 AM
Penguin rech,

I stopped responding to your posts when they became an insult to this forums intelligence and TEND to point to trolling.

If you want some of those ansered, defined then READ the answer to Yanazat's tirade. They TEND to prove, reasonably exhaustively, my point in all this is valid. I'm not going to jump on a merry-go-round.

Balerion
02-17-12, 05:05 AM
Calling someone a troll is against the rules. Members should be considered legitimate as long as they are active (not banned).

Not when they post like that they shouldn't.

HectorDecimal
02-17-12, 05:44 AM
Not when they post like that they shouldn't.

Kindly stay on topic... :)

Captain Kremmen
02-17-12, 08:44 AM
...............classic physics would tell us that the planets are completely formed and, with the nebular light still present, even life could be forming on them PRIOR to the star's ignition......

What level of life?

The Bible says:
11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.


So, before the sun was even lit, the earth had trees growing on it with fruit.
Do you really believe this to be an accurate description of the genesis of life on earth?

HectorDecimal
02-17-12, 10:22 AM
What level of life?

The Bible says:
11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.


So, before the sun was even lit, the earth had trees growing on it with fruit.
Do you really believe this to be an accurate description of the genesis of life on earth?

I went over all that in response to a tirade by Yazata (sp?).

Yes. It is possible life, as in trees and primates, could develop on a planet illuminated by residual, primordial photons, but radioactivity could also illuminate and produce many strange mutations from basic DNA and microbes "teeming" together.

Yazata
02-17-12, 11:23 AM
Hector wrote:


If I ever had my doubts, which I have at times, the Hubble and other space stationed telescopes have confirmed my belief in that book as the written word of God.

I replied:


That's probably true for you, autobiographically.


That makes no sense either. Last time I checked my name wasn't Moses.

It may well be autobiographically true that you reaffirmed your own belief that the bible is the written word of God.

I wrote:


That's probably true for you, autobiographically.
But it sounds like a tremendous non-sequitur to me. How does one get from a fanciful layman's interpretation of some Hubble photographs to confidence that the Bible is "the written word of God"?

Hector responds:


How does one get from a 5th Grader's insult attempting level to a misconception of the definition of non-sequitur?

'Non-sequitur' is Latin for 'doesn't follow'. It refers to the logical fallacy that occurs when one spins out a conclusion to an argument that doesn't follow from the argument's premises. My question is, how does your conclusion that the Bible is the written word of God follow from your personal interpretation of some Hubble photographs?

About the only connection that I can see is that you think that you can interpret the Hubble photographs in such a way that you think that they are consistent with the seeming chronological difficulty in Genesis that has the Earth forming and life already on it before the Sun was lit.

I wrote:


Traditional Buddhist cosmology speaks of countless world-systems. I don't see that idea in the Hebrew creation mythology. Having said that, I don't interpret that as evidence that Buddhist tradition derives from an omniscient source. I think that it's more likely to just be a lucky ancient guess.


Now that's impressive. A 5th grade level comparing Bhudism to String Theory, which fails itself by Susskind's own internal conflict where a multiverse is concerned.

I never mentioned string theory. The point is that traditional Buddhist cosmology claims that there are multiple world systems out there. And science has indeed discovered that the stars in the sky are other suns and they many of them indeed have planets orbiting them. So, arguing analogously to what you said in your first post in this thread, does the consistency between this particular aspect of ancient Buddhist cosmology and modern astronomy imply that Buddhism must derive from an omniscient source?


Maybe lucky we saw it soon enough to dismiss it.

But why should those kinds of fortuitous congruities between ancient mythic cosmologies be rejected in the Buddhst case but embraced as evidence of divine authorship in the Hebrew case?

Yazata
02-17-12, 12:21 PM
Here are some comments on the Genesis cosmology.


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Along with the "heavens" (it isn't clear what that means), the Earth seems to have been the very first thing created. The Earth has existed for as long as anything else in the universe.


2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

That looks like a reference to earlier Mesopotamean cosmological myth, in which "waters" represented primordial chaos. Water has no shape or form of its own and takes the shape of whatever container it's in. It also had the annoying tendency to erode the Mesopotameans' mud-brick structures back into formlessness. Floods were the great danger in Mesopotamia and the primary source of their ancient disasters.


3 And God said, β€œLet there be light, and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day.

We seem to have not only light, but day and night, before the Sun, Moon or stars were lit.


6 And God said, Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.

7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.

8 God called the vault sky. And there was evening, and there was morning the second day.

Apparently the ancient Hebrews imagined the sky to be a giant dome over creation (the Earth), with "waters" (chaos) above and below.


9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.

The Earth was already stable enough to have a solid surface and oceans, before the Sun was lit.


11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so.

So the very first life to appear on Earth, even before the Sun was lit, were seed-bearing and fruit-producing plants and trees. This life appeared on land and not in the oceans.


12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so.

16 God made two great light the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Only at this point do the Sun and Moon appear. (They seem to be imagined as if they were lights up on the sky-dome.) And only now do all the rest of the stars simultaneously appear. (They seem to have been imagined as little lights too.)


17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,

18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening, and there was morning the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.

Only now does sea-life appear. Apparently the appearance of sea-life is simultaneous with the appearance of birds, which seem to be the first land-animals.


21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

22 God blessed them and said, Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.

23 And there was evening, and there was morning the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind. And it was so.

The first land-animals, apart from birds, that appear seem to include "the livestock", presumably meaning mammals.


25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.

It's a nice story and it probably tells us a lot about how the ancient Hebrews imagined their world. But it seems kind of foolish to try to read it as if it was a scientifically accurate account of how the universe, the Earth and life came to be.

I'm not sure how literally even the ancient Hebrews took a story like this. I'd guess that many of them recognized that there was a great deal of 'poetic license' there.

Captain Kremmen
02-17-12, 04:30 PM
I went over all that in response to a tirade by Yazata (sp?).

Yes. It is possible life, as in trees and primates, could develop on a planet illuminated by residual, primordial photons, but radioactivity could also illuminate and produce many strange mutations from basic DNA and microbes "teeming" together.

I can imagine very primitive life not requiring much light, or even growing in darkness, but trees with fruit?
That's hard to swallow.
How much light do you think these primordial photons would supply to the earth?
Would the light be as strong as moonlight do you think?

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 08:46 AM
I can imagine very primitive life not requiring much light, or even growing in darkness, but trees with fruit?
That's hard to swallow.
How much light do you think these primordial photons would supply to the earth?
Would the light be as strong as moonlight do you think?

It's a matter of proximity. Close to the forming star, amid the scattering of the heavier elemental fragments in its contracting, primordial essence, the light would be possibly more intense than sunlight. It would be like a nova in reverse, meaning briliant multi-spectral luminance projected outward, as the Hubble sees from this distance, only in contraction-acretion phase. The difference is instead of being the remains of a body chiefly composed of heavy hydrogen isotope, it would contain pretty much all the heavier elements.

(I really need to experiment with this particular forum's functions to upload pics into a thread. at my jootbox forum I upload from my machine and Voila! they are in the thread as big as we like...

To do this would mean I can sketch up some illustrations or even add some older ones and show what I mean.)

Everything for life is there. This means that there just might be life on large enough asteroids in sufficiently luminous nebulae.

Captain Kremmen
02-18-12, 09:00 AM
If there were parts of the universe in which light like daylight were falling upon the planets, while the Sun was yet dim, wouldn't it be quite easy to observe those planets.

We observed the first planet directly, without inference, in 2005
see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4501323.stm

Without a blazing sun, surely planets lit as brightly as daylight by primordial photons, circling around their as-yet unlit suns, would be commonplace observations.

Why are they as yet undiscovered?

There are other things that don't make sense, but I'll just ask this question for the moment.

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 09:20 AM
If there were parts of the universe in which light like daylight were falling upon the planets, while the Sun was yet dim, wouldn't it be quite easy to observe those planets.

We observed the first planet directly, without inference, in 2005
see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4501323.stm

Without a blazing sun, surely planets lit as brightly as daylight by primordial photons, circling around their as-yet unlit suns, would be commonplace observations.

Why are they as yet undiscovered?

There are other things that don't make sense, but I'll just ask this question for the moment.

"We only cover a small section of the sky and it's a big ass sky." (The movie Armageddon)

We are just beginning after milleniums of stargazing to refine our tools and learn how to use them. Give it some more time and Toto will drag open the curtain. ;)

aaqucnaona
02-18-12, 09:21 AM
Penguin rech,

I stopped responding to your posts when they became an insult to this forums intelligence and TEND to point to trolling.

If you want some of those ansered, defined then READ the answer to Yanazat's tirade. They TEND to prove, reasonably exhaustively, my point in all this is valid. I'm not going to jump on a merry-go-round.

Seal calling walrus fat?

And please substantiate that excuse or retract it.

aaqucnaona
02-18-12, 09:23 AM
Prove that. I've never seen anything that takes this beyond an educated guess.

Agreed, this isnt my field and I dont dabble in it much. Claim retracted, reintroduced as an educated guess.


There are evidences that TEND to prove this is ONE system of creation.

But the important bit is, where are the evidences that this ISN'T the ONLY system of existence?

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 10:18 AM
Seal calling walrus fat?

And please substantiate that excuse or retract it.

Before I do such, let's see if all that would suggest such ceases and decists.

BTW... a walrus likely would seem fat to a seal, if not perhaps we'd have Navy Walruses...

Yazata
02-18-12, 11:16 AM
( Gen. 1:3-16 are not extraordinary claims

Genesis 1 purports to be an account of the miraculous creation of the entire universe by a god. Almost every aspect of the Genesis 1 chronology contradicts the modern scientific understanding of the history of the universe, the Earth, and life on this planet.


they are based on someone's ancient vision, no different that Einstein's vision of relativity and light being bent by gravity.

Einstein's hypotheses were informed speculations based closely on scientific observation. Even the parts that contradicted classical Newtonian understandings were consistent with problematic experimental findings such as the Michelson-Morley results. Einstein's theories weren't accepted until their predictions had been verified in multiple ways. And even now, nobody is suggesting that Einstein's theories are the written/spoken word of God.


Einstein's vision was evidenced in 1919. Gen. has only recently been evidenced by the provided Hubble shots (and not the first one used to introduce the page.

Hubble has evidence that the Earth is the oldest object in creation, created on the very first day, before any stars?

Hubble has evidence that "waters" exist up above the sky?

Hubble has evidence that the Earth had already accreted, cooled, and formed a solid surface complete with water oceans, before the Sun existed?

Hubble has evidence that the first forms of life to appear on Earth were complex and highly-evolved seed and fruit-bearing plants on land, and not simple prokaryotes in the seas near geothermal vents or something?

Hubble has evidence that seed and fruit bearing plants already existed on Earth even before the time of the Sun's ignition?

Hubble has evidence that the first animals to appear on this planet were highly evolved birds, and not an anatomically simple phylum like sponges?

Hubble has evidence that the first quadripeds to appear on Earth's surface included the same recognizable "kinds" of mammals ("livestock") that we see today?

Hubble has evidence that this whole rather fanciful chronology, which is dramatically at variance with science's understanding at almost every point, happened for miraculous reasons that are revealed uniquely in Hebrew scripture?

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 11:20 AM
Yazata,

I think you need to read all I've posted to you SEVERAL times, before I take it further for you. How's about posting in my "Intro?" We can make that about you as well... :)

Rhaedas
02-18-12, 11:23 AM
You forgot the firmament. Or did that fall when the waters fell? I forget how the fable goes. It probably depends on what is needed at the time.

Interesting how so many can read between the lines of the bible, even though the bible has a passage that states to not add or take away from the bible, it is what it is (I guess that didn't apply in the Council of Nicaea :bugeye:).

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 11:54 AM
You forgot the firmament. Or did that fall when the waters fell? I forget how the fable goes. It probably depends on what is needed at the time.

Interesting how so many can read between the lines of the bible, even though the bible has a passage that states to not add or take away from the bible, it is what it is (I guess that didn't apply in the Council of Nicaea :bugeye:).

Look at your copy. Do you find my writing in it?

Why don't you tell us what firmament means? :)... it'll be on the test :D

Yazata
02-18-12, 12:16 PM
You forgot the firmament. Or did that fall when the waters fell? I forget how the fable goes.

The ancient Hebrews seem to have imagined the vault or arch of the sky (the "firmament") as a solid tangible dome over the flat earth. Its inner surface is lit up and blue during the day and dark and black at night. So day and night are separate phenomena from illumination by the Sun and Moon. These two bodies, along with the tiny pinpoint stars, are apparently imagined as being lights that move around on the inner surface of the dome.

So I guess that in this Genesis 1 scheme, the firmament is still up there, since we still see the blue inner surface of the dome up there in the sky during the day.


Interesting how so many can read between the lines of the bible, even though the bible has a passage that states to not add or take away from the bible, it is what it is (I guess that didn't apply in the Council of Nicaea :bugeye:).

They reinterpret it as it suits their theological ideas. Even Paul was busily reinterpreting Isaiah in ways that conventional Jews couldn't accept, rereading its middle 'suffering servant' sections as if they were 'prophecies' of Jesus.

But yeah, the Genesis 1 account is so radically different than modern scientific cosmology, that individuals who want to embrace science (as Hector apparently does) while continuing to hold onto a literalist interpretation of Genesis (which he seemingly wants to do as well) will have to subject themselves to intellectual contortions worthy of an Olympic gold medal gymnast.

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 12:28 PM
The ancient Hebrews seem to have imagined the vault or arch of the sky (the "firmament") as a solid tangible dome over the flat earth.

Do you speak and read fluent Ancient Hebrew or are you quoting an older English translation such as the KJV?

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 12:43 PM
The hubble (bifocals and reading chart installed :) ) has shown us forming star systems in the Orion Nebula especially. Although there is controversy over the nature of the PROTOPlanetarYDisk's (Pro(to)plyds), mine especially throwing sand in the wheel of discovery, classic physics would tell us that the planets are completely formed and, with the nebular light still present, even life could be forming on them PRIOR to the star's ignition. I have found no other religion, Koran, Confuscius or otherwise that gets that simple chronology correct. If I ever had my doubts, which I have at times, the Hubble and other space stationed telescopes have confirmed my belief in that book as the written word of God.

Other perspectives beyond what the telescopes see, is the "unseen;" the 5th Dimension as Kaluza-Klein dubs it. String theory rearranges all that along with many who advocate time travel. If someone believes in prophecy, they believe in time travel. Planck Time is an accepted basic unit of time based around the speed of the photon. If we can only take in less than 100 frames per second, a stream of photons generate millions of interstices between those frames. The unseen goes on forever.

I find it fascinating that the main essence of this thread has been lost to semantics.

This aspect has a little recent validating evidence. What I find even more fascinating is how anyone can enter such a unique discussion to destroy it's essential purpose, but few can offer anything to corroborate when it's all available at a finger click. I'm thankful that NASA and Science Daily stay neutral when serving up the findings. Maybe a few others in here somewhere will find it in themselves to not cover the obviously strange light with a bushel basket.

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 12:48 PM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118133050.htm

Voila! Light from nothing!

Captain Kremmen
02-18-12, 04:19 PM
It's a matter of proximity. Close to the forming star, amid the scattering of the heavier elemental fragments in its contracting, primordial essence, the light would be possibly more intense than sunlight. It would be like a nova in reverse, meaning briliant multi-spectral luminance projected outward, as the Hubble sees from this distance, only in contraction-acretion phase. The difference is instead of being the remains of a body chiefly composed of heavy hydrogen isotope, it would contain pretty much all the heavier elements.


This light, as bright as sunlight, which fell on planets before the sun was even lit, and allowed them to have trees with fruit.
Are you saying that Hubble provides evidence of this?
Have you any links to articles that say this?

Secondly, you keep mentioning nebular light, as if clouds of gas had light.
The only light in nebulae is from early stars forming.

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 04:33 PM
This light, as bright as sunlight, which fell on planets before the sun was even lit, and allowed them to have trees with fruit.
Are you saying that Hubble provides evidence of this?
Have you any links to articles that say this?

Secondly, you keep mentioning nebular light, as if clouds of gas had light.
The only light in nebulae is from early stars forming.

The Hubble shows this. Correct?

AlphaNumeric
02-18-12, 05:36 PM
Why? We can theorize quite realistically there is an element 138, even though the current theoreticals only number to 118 without first having proof that 117 can be stablized. We theorize singularities exist, even though we have no proof that a black hole is really just that. We call that stuff science. We can even theorize various ways the universe was originated and those qualify as science with no proof there ever was a big bang. In fact we can find many books inspired about that subject that has no proof, but to make a statement that may have easily have been said "God inspired Moses, an historically recorded member of the Hebrew race, by communicating to him through the 5th dimension..." is verbotten? Sounds like a human rights violation to me.

In fact, if you put "flame speaker" in a search, you'll find we can make sound come out of a flame by inserting an electrode inside it to ionize the outer gradient areas of the flame. I first saw that in Electronics Illustrated when I was about 12.

No. I don't need proof God exists to make such a statement. Neither do I need any more proof that Moses existed than we do that Aristotle or Caiphas existed.

I do appreciate your adherence to the topic, though :)You have a fundamental lack of understanding of science if that's your attitude.

Both the BB model and black holes were derived mathematically from principles which had already lead to verified and accurate predictions about observable phenomena. They both then made predictions about phenomena we couldn't yet measure but have since measured, such as the power spectrum of the CMB, fluctuations in the CMB, elemental abundance in the universe, orbital mechanics of galaxies and even space-time warping around our own planet. The same description for a black hole applies to Earth and it's what makes the GPS network work.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118133050.htm

Voila! Light from nothing!Except it isn't 'nothing' in the fullest possible sense, as a quantum vacuum is not the same as 'nothing' you're referring to. Furthermore it is done within the arena of space-time, which itself is not nothing.

The bible is simply not an accurate description of how the universe works or how it came about or even the recent history of Earth. Hell, it can't even get pi right, something you could check with a stick and a piece of string! The bible is demonstrably wrong on a great many things about reality, never mind being full of some of the most bigoted ignorant hateful hypocritical xenophobic bullshit ever put into text. If someone, for whatever unjustified and irrational reason, is compelled to think there's something to Christianity or any of the other Abrahamic religions they can only really take it as allegory and metaphor because taking it literally is not only irrational and unjustified, it's denying reality, demonstrably, right in front of your face, reality.

Crunchy Cat
02-18-12, 05:52 PM
4 pages in and I have seen no Hubble evidence presented that validates the Bible. To the OP, I would suggest listing out the assertions in the bible you are focusing on and how the Hubble validates each one.

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 06:57 PM
You have a fundamental lack of understanding of science if that's your attitude.
Both the BB model and black holes were derived mathematically from principles which had already lead to verified and accurate predictions about observable phenomena. They both then made predictions about phenomena we couldn't yet measure but have since measured, such as the power spectrum of the CMB, fluctuations in the CMB, elemental abundance in the universe, orbital mechanics of galaxies and even space-time warping around our own planet. The same description for a black hole applies to Earth and it's what makes the GPS network work.Except it isn't 'nothing' in the fullest possible sense, as a quantum vacuum is not the same as 'nothing' you're referring to. Furthermore it is done within the arena of space-time, which itself is not nothing.

The bible is simply not an accurate description of how the universe works or how it came about or even the recent history of Earth. Hell, it can't even get pi right, something you could check with a stick and a piece of string! The bible is demonstrably wrong on a great many things about reality, never mind being full of some of the most bigoted ignorant hateful hypocritical xenophobic bullshit ever put into text. If someone, for whatever unjustified and irrational reason, is compelled to think there's something to Christianity or any of the other Abrahamic religions they can only really take it as allegory and metaphor because taking it literally is not only irrational and unjustified, it's denying reality, demonstrably, right in front of your face, reality.The same could be said about you, but neither of us are the topic. You do know that the definition of trolling is intentionally trying to get under another member's skin... don't you? Maybe you have a fundamental lack of undersatnding in that. Wiki defines trolling...

Tell me something an astrophysicist wouldn't already know. This merely grasping at straws to build... well... a straw man. The point is if the Hubble can actually see it, it isn't a black body. COBE picks up the presence of event horizons as does WMAP. Exactly what's in the center requires some good theorization, still, per the topic, we are really talking about the physics of stellar vs planetary acretion.

For our purposes "nothing" is relative, same as absolute zero would be different for space where photons exist, space where dark matter exists and space where absolute nothing exists. The inability to imagine those different areas of space is... well... lack of imagination.

And there's the straw man. Not to harp (neithe pun intended nor conspiracy theories... :D) but the topic is still about the chronology of stellar vs planetary acretion and compares the Bible against other religions that conflict with that correct sequence that soooo many so-called scientists rearrange to suit the Atheist, or even more specifically anti-Biblical, religion. Unfortunately the Hubble has drawn back the curtain a bit and now the frailty of "Great" science is seen and how it has been nothing short of bamboozling people of essentially non-mathematical careers with the illusion that those in academic tenure just couldn't be wrong. Of course those types who enjoy nothing better than keeping their thumb on the opposition will want to pervert the wrods of anyone who challenges their religious belief. To render disdain for the Bible's depiction of rudimentary, yes, unrefined, knowledge is like punching one's aging father in the eye. Why wouldn't that Dad disown that rebellious child?

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 07:06 PM
4 pages in and I have seen no Hubble evidence presented that validates the Bible. To the OP, I would suggest listing out the assertions in the bible you are focusing on and how the Hubble validates each one.

I suggest a more thorough reading. That has been done to a reasonable degree. There has yet to be shown any evidence that proves proplyds acrete the star to ignition prior to the life supporting phase of a planet. Evidence has been shown to depict planetary acretion with sufficient light to grow trees bearing fruit, but any tree bears some kind of fruit if only a maple seed or an acorn. The OP is not required to be redundant.

Crunchy Cat
02-18-12, 07:28 PM
I suggest a more thorough reading. That has been done to a reasonable degree.

Then I presume you should have no difficulty showing me where.



There has yet to be shown any evidence that proves proplyds acrete the star to ignition prior to the life supporting phase of a planet.

I can't imagine why I would care about that. I am after the evidence to demonstrate your claim. Just for giggles, you mentioned "life supporting phase of *a* planet". Unless my knowledge is dated, I *think* the bible is only referring to earth. Our sun is 4.6 billion years old (roughly the same age as our solar system). The earth is 4.55 billion years old (a little younger). Plant life is required for mammals to exist. Plant life requires heavy doses of photons from the sun to exist. I don't know how this fits in to anything you are asserting, but I suspect it is non-supporitve.



Evidence has been shown to depict planetary acretion with sufficient light to grow trees bearing fruit, but any tree bears some kind of fruit if only a maple seed or an acorn. The OP is not required to be redundant.

Let me see if I am understanding your assertion correctly. Are you stating that you have demonstrated that a planet formed on its own with sufficient photon output (in the absence of a local sun) to provide energy for life to evolve into trees? If so, you will have to show me where because I don't see it.

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 08:35 PM
Then I presume you should have no difficulty showing me where.

I can't imagine why I would care about that. I am after the evidence to demonstrate your claim. Just for giggles, you mentioned "life supporting phase of *a* planet". Unless my knowledge is dated, I *think* the bible is only referring to earth. Our sun is 4.6 billion years old (roughly the same age as our solar system). The earth is 4.55 billion years old (a little younger). Plant life is required for mammals to exist. Plant life requires heavy doses of photons from the sun to exist. I don't know how this fits in to anything you are asserting, but I suspect it is non-supporitve.



Let me see if I am understanding your assertion correctly. Are you stating that you have demonstrated that a planet formed on its own with sufficient photon output (in the absence of a local sun) to provide energy for life to evolve into trees? If so, you will have to show me where because I don't see it.

Difficulty? no. Willingness to spoon feed? Yes. I suggest seeking out the answers to yazata's trolling.

trolling here too? The Science of the Bible, meaning the archaic term that would apply to teachings of the hierarchy that define what Moses meant devoid of his input, is similar to the veil of superiority worn by modern scientific hierarchy. God gives VISION to whoever He wants. He inspires WORDS into the minds of whoever He chooses. He sometimes hardens the heart of a mean spirited person so He can justify, as though He needs to, giving them a major can of whoopass, regardless of whether they try to weasle their way out of it. (Reference:Pharoah) No Biblical priest, save for those CHOSEN by Him, can accurately define what another chosen one was given to share with humanity. Similarly no modern science "priest" will accurately define what their own instruments show them if it conflicts with the food chain of their atheistic belief. Like Jesus, some of those outside the food chain or uncaring of that food chain, give the priests the finger. ;)

Actually I'm saying Leonardo DaVinci, Galileo, Kepler and Sir Isaac Newton did that. I could add, though, that the Yellowstone Supervolcano gives us a reference of a good deal of other parts of the scenario surrounding Genesis. THIS thread is about the Hubble and things we can't actually see close up with our own eyes.

Crunchy Cat
02-18-12, 09:31 PM
Lame, that response doesn't warrant further discussion.

HectorDecimal
02-18-12, 09:42 PM
Lame, that response doesn't warrant further discussion.

What response is that? Is it lame because it challenges some religion that doesn't challenge the priesthood of errant science? Why is it lame?

AlexG
02-18-12, 10:02 PM
What response is that? Is it lame because it challenges some religion that doesn't challenge the priesthood of errant science? Why is it lame?

It's lame because, in spite of repeated requests, you haven't shown any evidence for anything you've claimed, and demonstrated a basic lack of knowledge.

You simply make claims.

Aqueous Id
02-18-12, 10:50 PM
I didn't bother to read the thread. Just came to say anyone who links Hubble with a confirmation of the creation myth from Genesis, is looking way too far away for proof that it's more than myth - I mean, since that's all we have proof of so far. I suppose you could use the lenses trained on the earth to do better, for example, Google Earth, and go find Paradise. Check out the river that connects the Tigris-Euphrates to the land of the Kush, which is a river that defies gravity to climb out of Mesopotamia, and, somehow parts the Red Sea on its way to Somalia.

Discover that lost river, and you will be rich and famous, and I will buy T-shirts for every one posting here (on the negative) that say: "I argued with"...(your name) and then on the back, a target, or a donkey, anything you choose. Oh, of course: I've been saved. I suppose the world would be on its knees by then anyway, observing all kinds of - did you say you were a fundamentalist? - well, all kinds of religious rites that you could specify, because you'd be a jillion times more influential than that religious guy in Contact.

Aqueous Id
02-18-12, 11:03 PM
What response is that? Is it lame because it challenges some religion that doesn't challenge the priesthood of errant science? Why is it lame?

A priesthood requires a pope. Who is the Pope of Science? If you can't think of one, I nominate Alexander Pope:


Say first, of God above, or man below
What can we reason, but from what we know?
Of man, what see we but his station here,
From which to reason, or to which refer?
Through worlds unnumbered though the God be known,
'Tis ours to trace Him only in our own.
He, who through vast immensity can pierce,
See worlds on worlds compose one universe,
Observe how system into system runs,
What other planets circle other suns,
What varied being peoples every star,
May tell why Heaven has made us as we are.
But of this frame, the bearings, and the ties,
The strong connections, nice dependencies,
Gradations just, has thy pervading soul
Looked through? or can a part contain the whole?
Is the great chain, that draws all to agree,
And drawn supports, upheld by God, or thee?

Pretty freakin scientific for an Old World wordsmith, heh?

kx000
02-18-12, 11:43 PM
A priesthood requires a pope. Who is the Pope of Science? If you can't think of one, I nominate Alexander Pope:

The incarnation of the archangel Rafael :cool:

Aqueous Id
02-19-12, 01:25 AM
The incarnation of the archangel Rafael :cool:

We're in the religious telescope section.

That would be arc angle. :D

HectorDecimal
02-19-12, 02:08 AM
It's lame because, in spite of repeated requests, you haven't shown any evidence for anything you've claimed, and demonstrated a basic lack of knowledge.

You simply make claims.

You are wrong. I say again. READ what's already been answered to others. I won't spoon feed.

HectorDecimal
02-19-12, 02:29 AM
I didn't bother to read the thread. Just came to say anyone who links Hubble with a confirmation of the creation myth from Genesis, is looking way too far away for proof that it's more than myth - I mean, since that's all we have proof of so far. I suppose you could use the lenses trained on the earth to do better, for example, Google Earth, and go find Paradise. Check out the river that connects the Tigris-Euphrates to the land of the Kush, which is a river that defies gravity to climb out of Mesopotamia, and, somehow parts the Red Sea on its way to Somalia.

Discover that lost river, and you will be rich and famous, and I will buy T-shirts for every one posting here (on the negative) that say: "I argued with"...(your name) and then on the back, a target, or a donkey, anything you choose. Oh, of course: I've been saved. I suppose the world would be on its knees by then anyway, observing all kinds of - did you say you were a fundamentalist? - well, all kinds of religious rites that you could specify, because you'd be a jillion times more influential than that religious guy in Contact.

Pleased to meet you, Aqua.

I actually said I'm not a fundamentalist. What I'm doing here is pointing out some of the Hubble shots that show a forming star system along with a link to that main Hubble website area. Beyond that I'm explaining how the planets would acrete, cool and contract before the larger mass of the sun would, so the star would not ignite till long after the planet was well on its way to producing life. This is an area for comparative religion, so I've compared that the Bible has the formation of planets and stars in the correct order.

I've also entered in some content about the 5th dimension. In that we really start looking at what my NIV calls sky, but other versions call a vault or a firmament and had this thread grown in a respectful manner, we'd likely be into discussing the geometric and physical nature of black holes and a different perspective on what they mean. This thread does not view any of the scriptures or probe findings from a mainstream perspective, but from an imaginative, out of the box perspective. It's been greeted with a lot of insults, and you can see I fight back. If I walked into the NSF and was immediately tackled by some other scientists and started defending myself, I'd only hope some neutral witnesses were there to tell the cops the other guys assaulted me and I was in the right. I'm just not in the habit of giving my milk money to bullies. Never have. Never will. I shouldn't be ostracized for that.

Thank you for a very civil post.

Hector Decimal

HectorDecimal
02-19-12, 02:33 AM
:sleep:

Later...

HectorDecimal
02-19-12, 02:35 AM
We're in the religious telescope section.

That would be arc angle. :D

Arctan :D

AlphaNumeric
02-19-12, 02:36 AM
[/COLOR]The same could be said about you, but neither of us are the topic. You do know that the definition of trolling is intentionally trying to get under another member's skin... don't you? Maybe you have a fundamental lack of undersatnding in that. Wiki defines trolling...Transparent troll is transparent.

Some of us paid attention in science class.


Tell me something an astrophysicist wouldn't already know. This merely grasping at straws to build... well... a straw man. The point is if the Hubble can actually see it, it isn't a black body. COBE picks up the presence of event horizons as does WMAP. Exactly what's in the center requires some good theorization, still, per the topic, we are really talking about the physics of stellar vs planetary acretion. The question is whether you're being deliberately obtuse, pretending to be profoundly ignorant, or whether you're actually that ill informed.

A black body radiates, that's what black body radiation is. The only things which do not radiate anything are objects at 0 Kelvin, which doesn't occur. Even black holes, which classically have zero temperature, radiate due to quantum corrections.

And I can tell you plenty of things an astrophysicist wouldn't know, scientific things, but that's because my area of experience (I'm not so knowledgeable I'd say 'area of expertise') is in a different realm of physics.


For our purposes "nothing" is relative, same as absolute zero would be different for space where photons exist, space where dark matter exists and space where absolute nothing exists. The inability to imagine those different areas of space is... well... lack of imagination.Actually I was making the distinction between the quantum field theoretic vacuum and the classical vacuum. There's a significant difference, it's something anyone who studies quantum field theory comes across.

I am not lacking in imagination when it comes to these things, in fact part of my research has been in constructing vacua in field theoretic models. Instead I was pointing out the problems in your assertions.


[QUOTE=HectorDecimal;2905766] And there's the straw man. Not to harp (neithe pun intended nor conspiracy theories... :D) but the topic is still about the chronology of stellar vs planetary acretion and compares the Bible against other religions that conflict with that correct sequence that soooo many so-called scientists rearrange to suit the Atheist, or even more specifically anti-Biblical, religion. Unfortunately the Hubble has drawn back the curtain a bit and now the frailty of "Great" science is seen and how it has been nothing short of bamboozling people of essentially non-mathematical careers with the illusion that those in academic tenure just couldn't be wrong. Of course those types who enjoy nothing better than keeping their thumb on the opposition will want to pervert the wrods of anyone who challenges their religious belief. To render disdain for the Bible's depiction of rudimentary, yes, unrefined, knowledge is like punching one's aging father in the eye. Why wouldn't that Dad disown that rebellious child? Lame troll is lame.

Captain Kremmen
02-19-12, 05:20 AM
4 pages in and I have seen no Hubble evidence presented that validates the Bible. To the OP, I would suggest listing out the assertions in the bible you are focusing on and how the Hubble validates each one.

Ditto. I would like him to do that too.
But it is very difficult to get a reply from HectorD.
AlexG tried earlier, and he was told to re-read the thread, where he would find all the answers to his questions.
Yazata has been trying to make him come up with instances of agreement with the Genesis story.
HectorD will not spoon-feed us, apparently.

@HectorD
What you call spoon-feeding is what we call science.
When you make a statement, you need to show that it is true.

This is the Religion section, so you can say what you like about religious matters,
but when you have a thread title which claims scientific evidence for religious beliefs,
you need to come up with the goods.

Could you indulge us by giving just three examples of how the Hubble corroborates the Biblical Chronology.
And follow this with evidence, giving links where appropriate.

Aqueous Id
02-19-12, 07:50 AM
I actually said I'm not a fundamentalist.

Then what is you motive for connecting cosmic phenomena to the creation myth?



Beyond that I'm explaining how the planets would acrete, cool and contract before the larger mass of the sun would, so the star would not ignite till long after the planet was well on its way to producing life.

You speak as though you have if all figured out. Have you ever read a published paper that presents a finding? Do you notice anything different about what you have said, how you have said it, and how all of those experts communicate with their readers?



This is an area for comparative religion, so I've compared that the Bible has the formation of planets and stars in the correct order.
Which means the topic is intended to center around religion. I fail to see how that can be possible.


I actually said I'm not a fundamentalist.

Then what is you motive for connecting cosmic phenomena to the creation myth?



Beyond that I'm explaining how the planets would acrete, cool and contract before the larger mass of the sun would, so the star would not ignite till long after the planet was well on its way to producing life.

You speak as though you have if all figured out. Have you ever read a published paper that presents a finding? Do you notice anything different about what you have said, how you have said it, and how all of those experts communicate with their readers?



This is an area for comparative religion, so I've compared that the Bible has the formation of planets and stars in the correct order.
Which means the topic is intended to center around religion. I fail to see how that can be possible.



I've also entered in some content about the 5th dimension.

Why? For what purpose? What is you ultimate goal? I can imagine a parallel universe, in which there is an earth that unfolds exactly as ours, except every third word in all human speech is "Quetzlcoatl". What possible reason might I have for bringing such an idea as a thread topic?



In that we really start looking at what my NIV calls sky, but other versions call a vault or a firmament and had this thread grown in a respectful manner, we'd likely be into discussing the geometric and physical nature of black holes and a different perspective on what they mean.

You mean a Bible? I thought you said you weren't a fundamentalist. If you wanted a technical discussion, why not post it in a technical area? Why not give an abstract that resembles something plausibly scholarly, because you're addressing seasoned experts here. Again, your tacit motive is clouding the allegations you bring, which appear to require an inordinate burden of proof, even if you were suggesting a thesis that is only mildly controversial. Speculation over an issue completely unknown, such as the initial conditions preceding the event that gave birth to our solar system, are beyond the limits of knowledge. All that will come of this is a lot of hubris and hyperbole. So what's the motive for that?



This thread does not view any of the scriptures or probe findings from a mainstream perspective, but from an imaginative, out of the box perspective.

What does that mean? What box confines us? And what liberates us if there is a box? How does imagination solve the vast unknown metrics for this huge system, which we have barely begun to study and understand. It is this abundance of certainty that appears to provide a way out of the box. When has that ever solved any practical problem? Go into a lab, with a soil sample, and tell me how it was formed...by thinking out of the box? Or by tedious, laborious effort, constant recalibration and cross-checking, agonizing about assumptions, messages to everyone you know for help when you hit a brick wall, stuff like that. And that hasn't even touched on the actual process of discovering how to solve the problem.



It's been greeted with a lot of insults, and you can see I fight back. If I walked into the NSF and was immediately tackled by some other scientists and started defending myself, I'd only hope some neutral witnesses were there to tell the cops the other guys assaulted me and I was in the right. I'm just not in the habit of giving my milk money to bullies. Never have. Never will. I shouldn't be ostracized for that.

Well if you wanted a sword fight, there are plenty of gaming sites to accommodate that. I don't understand your remark about NSF, or the ideation that casts them as tough guys. Is this a fantasy? Why would you even say such a thing? And who has ostracized you? You seem to be taking the victim stance, but why?

I still haven't read this thread, I'm not sure I want to. I did re-read your OP and it resembles Creation Science, with a pseudo-science aftertaste.

If I can take you back for a moment to the very first principles you ever learned, you were taught that once a fallacy enters into a theorem, it's shot. Garbage in, garbage out. So any first year college student will be hard pressed to scrub every detail in every assumption made to sanitize his work just to pass muster.

But you have brought a bag full of "unclean" ideas. And if we let you in to the lab, you're going to contaminate all of our cultures. But what you're saying is: I'm the man. I got the chops. Well? Then apply all that muscle to the baggage you’re carrying, because our biohazard detectors are going off all over the place.

What have you got that's clean? I don't see it. I see an attempt to bounce your Creation Science slash Pseudoscience ideas off the wall here, as if to test the limits of the members who participate.

You say you're not a fundamentalist, but your thrust so far is correlating 100% with fundamentalism. So what's up with that? Can you even define Creation Science? Can you explain its history, any court cases you might recall, or any reason the NSF or other scientists here have so much bad blood with that movement? Last I heard, it wasn't the defenseless CS underdog that was being picked on, it was the defenseless school kids whose future education was placed at stake. Was and is. Why would any grown man push the kids to the side and ask for a moment in the spotlight, because he's being bullied?

You see where I'm coming from. Everyone who ever wants to prove anything new has to go through the same drill. So in the first place, you're not being picked on, you're being scrubbed down. You should appreciate that, not to allow false ideas to contaminate your own thinking.

The first blatantly false idea you propound is that you have a method to validate the creation myth. From that point on everything you say is shot. If you had come here to discuss a new artifact uncovered that would shed light into how this myth propagated from point A to point B, you'd have a normal reception. Because that's clean. It starts with the acknowledgement that Genesis is, on its face, principally myth. Granted there are some historical facts, like the building of Nineveh, which dates the earliest possible date for Genesis to that era. So that would be a clean thing to bring, because it helps arrive at the truth. It's unclear what you think truth is or how much you can squeeze it for milk money, but that kind of thinking won't even get you a floor sweeping job at NSF, I wouldn't think.

HectorDecimal
02-19-12, 08:19 AM
Then what is you motive for connecting cosmic phenomena to the creation myth?


You speak as though you have if all figured out. Have you ever read a published paper that presents a finding? Do you notice anything different about what you have said, how you have said it, and how all of those experts communicate with their readers?


Which means the topic is intended to center around religion. I fail to see how that can be possible.

Then what is you motive for connecting cosmic phenomena to the creation myth?


You speak as though you have if all figured out. Have you ever read a published paper that presents a finding? Do you notice anything different about what you have said, how you have said it, and how all of those experts communicate with their readers?


Which means the topic is intended to center around religion. I fail to see how that can be possible.


Why? For what purpose? What is you ultimate goal? I can imagine a parallel universe, in which there is an earth that unfolds exactly as ours, except every third word in all human speech is "Quetzlcoatl". What possible reason might I have for bringing such an idea as a thread topic?


You mean a Bible? I thought you said you weren't a fundamentalist. If you wanted a technical discussion, why not post it in a technical area? Why not give an abstract that resembles something plausibly scholarly, because you're addressing seasoned experts here. Again, your tacit motive is clouding the allegations you bring, which appear to be require an inordinate burden of proof, even if you were suggesting a thesis that is only mildly controversial. Speculation over an issue completely unknown, such as the initial conditions preceding the event that gave birth to our solar system, are beyond the limits of knowledge. All that will come of this is a lot of hubris and hyperbole. So what's the motive for that?


What does that mean? What box confines us? And what liberates us if there is a box? How does imagination solve the vast unknown metrics for this huge system, which we have barely begun to study and understand. It is this abundance of certainty that appears to provide a way out of the box. When has that ever solved any practical problem? Go into a lab, with a soil sample, and tell me how it was formed...by thinking out of the box? Or by tedious, laborious effort, constant recalibration and cross-checking, agonizing about assumptions, messages to everyone you know for help when you hit a brick wall, stuff like that. And that hasn't even touched on the actual process of discovering how to solve the problem.


Well if you wanted a sword fight, there are plenty of gaming sites to accommodate that. I don't understand your remark about NSF, or the ideation that casts them as tough guys. Is this a fantasy? Why would you even say such a thing? And who has ostracized you? You seem to be taking the victim stance, but why?

I still haven't read this thread, I'm not sure I want to. I did re-read your OP and it resembles Creation Science, with a pseudo-science aftertaste.

If I can take you back for a moment to the very first principles you ever learned, you were taught that once a fallacy enters into a theorem, it's shot. Garbage in, garbage out. So any first year college student will be hard pressed to scrub every detail in every assumption made to sanitize his work just to pass muster.

But you have brought a bag full of "unclean" ideas. And if we let you in to the lab, you're going to contaminate all of our cultures. But what you're saying is: I'm the man. I got the chops. Well? Then apply all that muscle to the baggage you’re carrying, because our biohazard detectors are going off all over the place.

What have you got that's clean? I don't see it. I see an attempt to bounce your Creation Science slash Pseudoscience ideas off the wall here, as if to test the limits of the members who participate.

You say you're not a fundamentalist, but your thrust so far is correlating 100% with fundamentalism. So what's up with that? Can you even define Creation Science? Can you explain its history, any court cases you might recall, or any reason the NSF or other scientists here have so much bad blood with that movement? Last I heard, it wasn't the defenseless CS underdog that was being picked on, it was the defenseless school kids whose future education was placed at stake. Was and is. Why would any grown man push the kids to the side and ask for a moment in the spotlight, because he's being bullied?

You see where I'm coming from. Everyone who ever wants to prove anything new has to go through the same drill. So in the first place, you're not being picked on, you're being scrubbed down. You should appreciate that, not to allow false ideas to contaminate your own thinking.

The first blatantly false idea you propound is that you have a method to validate the creation myth. From that point on everything you say is shot. If you had come here to discuss a new artifact uncovered that would shed light into how this myth propagated from point A to point B, you'd have a normal reception. Because that's clean. It starts with the acknowledgement that Genesis is, on its face, principally myth. Granted there are some historical facts, like the building of Nineveh, which dates the earliest possible date for Genesis to that era. So that would be a clean thing to bring, because it helps arrive at the truth. It's unclear what you think truth is or how much you can squeeze it for milk money, but that kind of thinking won't even get you a floor sweeping job at NSF, I wouldn't think.

Thank you for your opinion. I doubt if further pointing would satisfy any of these queries.

As for my motive? To show a few Hubble shots that seem to point to all that. I imagine I should have followed in Stephen Hawking's tracks and neatly disguised it all so the scientific review would not be in such an uproar over some new finding. Same thing applies though. It is the math where I would need to go next and I've already seen one person who wants to tear this all apart and torment me over it who says he sucks at math.

Why bother?

It's all been pointed out so a 5th grader could understand it.

Captain Kremmen
02-19-12, 09:38 AM
@Aquaeous
No success for you either. Same kind of answer.
HectorD has answered it all in his previous posts, so there is no need for further explananation.

@HectorD
Every contributor to this thread, apart from your good self,
says you haven't answered any questions at all.
Dish up the goods please!

At the risk of repeating myself, I will repeat myself.
This is the Religion section, so you can say what you like about religious matters,
but when you have a thread title which claims scientific evidence for religious beliefs,
you need to come up with the goods.

Could you indulge us by giving just three examples of how the Hubble corroborates Biblical Chronology.
And follow this with evidence, giving links where appropriate.

Aqueous Id
02-19-12, 10:31 AM
Thank you for your opinion. I doubt if further pointing would satisfy any of these queries.

As for my motive? To show a few Hubble shots that seem to point to all that. I imagine I should have followed in Stephen Hawking's tracks and neatly disguised it all so the scientific review would not be in such an uproar over some new finding. Same thing applies though. It is the math where I would need to go next and I've already seen one person who wants to tear this all apart and torment me over it who says he sucks at math.

Why bother?

It's all been pointed out so a 5th grader could understand it.

So a 5th grade education is required to converse with you?

You say perhaps you should have disguised your motive?

You think the scientific review would not be in such an uproar over some new finding? Think again:


Let's take a look at the incompatibilities between religion and science. The battle between evolutionary biologists and creationists is well known. Less well known are the ways theists and spiritualists misuse and misrepresent physics and cosmology to claim scientific support for their belief in a supernatural creation. They falsely claim that cosmology supports a created universe. They falsely claim that the parameters of physics are fine-tuned for human life. They falsely claim that modern physics provides a means for God to act in the world without being detected. They falsely claim that quantum mechanics implies that humans can make their own reality -- just by thinking they can.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-folly-of-faith_b_863179.html

This is where the uproar lies. The rest is 5th grade math.

Aqueous Id
02-19-12, 10:51 AM
@Aquaeous
No success for you either. Same kind of answer.
HectorD has answered it all in his previous posts, so there is no need for further explananation.


I didn't want to read the thread because it hit the bickering stage from the get go. I saw a bunch of experts come in and he lit into them. That says something by itself.

Captain Kremmen
02-19-12, 11:17 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-folly-of-faith_b_863179.html


That article quotes Pope Benedict XVI, with a statement that gives the faith argument.
I found this very interesting, as I had never heard it before, and it gets right to the crux of the religion science divide.

It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.

Pope Benedict XVI. Easter Sunday Vigil 2011

He does not try to give scientific explanations, or scientific proofs that what he is saying is true. He is arguing from principles of religion, about creation, which from the religious viewpoint is a religious event.
He does deny that the coming of mankind is a random event, with the argument that reason can only come from reason.
This is more a philosophical argument than a scientific one.

People have never warmed to him, not even many Catholics, but he can construct a good argument.

HectorDecimal
02-19-12, 11:21 AM
I didn't want to read the thread because it hit the bickering stage from the get go. I saw a bunch of experts come in and he lit into them. That says something by itself.

By my standards I may not agree they are experts, but let me try something a different way. Your way. Here are 3 places to begin with as a preliminary walkthrough.

Another issue, so this can perhaps identify the conflict. The first few reponses to the OP were like being tackled, not by the guard who didn't seem to have a problem with my being there, but more like a couple "experts" started tackling me. Unfortunately I wore my Bozo outfit that day. It pays the bills. I can get paid to teach other people as a clown. They call that stand up comedy.

I thought about starting a new thread, but the resolve is essentially the science of origins from a comparison of religions. Atheism entered immediately, logic would say atheists here already want to be recognized as a religion. Cool! Let's, for now, leave religion out of it, and discuss physics from a neutral perspective, on second thought, from the atheistic perspective. God doesn't matter. Her are our first building blocks, the precursor environment is, we get along.

Classic mechanics: Everything to begin with. we'll build off of f = ma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics


Solid Mechanics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_mechanics

Geological accretion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(geology)

There are the first 3 references.

Let's learn about why scientifically, then when the time is right, we'll review the whole OP. I promise to eventually go above and beyond what is necessary, but before I can introduce "The Phone Book" (Thorne and Wheeler) these other areas, we need to agree on our fundamental understandings. Experts entered right in from the get go. Let's compare notes, derivatives, standard and non-standard deviations.

Fair? :)

Captain Kremmen
02-19-12, 11:34 AM
You are ever willing to go off at a tangent.
Please. Support your main argument.

Again.
Could you indulge us by giving just three examples of how the Hubble corroborates Biblical Chronology.
And follow this with evidence, giving links where appropriate.

HectorDecimal
02-19-12, 12:12 PM
You are ever willing to go off at a tangent.
Please. Support your main argument.

Again.
Could you indulge us by giving just three examples of how the Hubble corroborates Biblical Chronology.
And follow this with evidence, giving links where appropriate.

I just did. :)
If you need more, then wait till there are some posts discussing the understanding of the basics to post back to the thread. If you want to ask a question, it should begin with Leonardo DaVinci, a father of advanced 3D geometry, the thumbnail sketch and the scientific perspective that inspired relativity, plus Isaac Newton who fathered classic mechanics : f = ma.

If you can't show me you can't imaginatively discuss f = ma, then how can I walk you through geological accretion and later astrophysical accretion? If you want me to reference others having this same conclusion from these Hubble shots, I'm sure they are out there. Somewhere in this we will examine where force = infinity, mass approaches 0 and acceleration approaches infinity, then ends up divided from a floor of 0 to a ceiling of infinity.

Yazata
02-19-12, 01:22 PM
And there's the straw man. Not to harp (neithe pun intended nor conspiracy theories... :D) but the topic is still about the chronology of stellar vs planetary acretion and compares the Bible against other religions

As far as I've seen, the only serious reference to another religion in this thread was my remark about Buddhist cosmology's countless numbers of world-systems. The Genesis account is entirely concerned with this planet and seems to assume that the Earth is unique. The closest thing to a reference in Genesis to different astronomical bodies is its treatment of the Sun, Moon and stars as lights up on the firmament. Given modern astronomy's view that the stars are distant suns and that many of them have planets orbiting them, the ancient Buddhist view may be a little closer to modern understanding (in that particular respect).

Obviously that doesn't constitute evidence that any of the rest of Buddhist belief is correct. Most likely it's just a lucky ancient guess. My point is simply that hunting around in hopes of finding the occasional loose analogy between some detail of one's chosen mythical cosmology and modern scientific understanding doesn't really produce evidence of very much.


that conflict with that correct sequence that soooo many so-called scientists rearrange to suit the Atheist, or even more specifically anti-Biblical, religion.

And "that correct sequence" is the Genesis sequence, right? Non-Christian religions and atheistic scientists have rearranged that true sequence to suit their own evil anti-Biblical agendas?

This does clarify one thing. It suggests that you aren't really trying to argue that the Genesis account is consistent with scientific chronology. (That would probably be an impossible task.) Instead, it sounds like you are making the much stronger claim that much of modern scientific chronology is simply bullshit.


Unfortunately the Hubble has drawn back the curtain a bit and now the frailty of "Great" science is seen and how it has been nothing short of bamboozling people of essentially non-mathematical careers with the illusion that those in academic tenure just couldn't be wrong.

AlexG
02-19-12, 01:35 PM
I just did.


This appears to be Hec's standard line of bullshit. You ask him, he says he answered, and leaves everbody saying 'no you didn't'.

This is just a baiter troll.

Not even up to the standards of a master baiter.

Trippy
02-19-12, 02:46 PM
You also would have seen the one I blatantly pointed out as having a luminous acretion disk, yet no ignition in the star.
Herbig Haro objects, of which DG Tau B is one, have ignited stars in their core. Except Class 0 (there are three classes, defined I believe by their spectral characteristics), which have proto-stars in their cores.

So, all but the very youngest of Herbig Haro objects have ignited stars in their cores (but they haven't neccessarily reached equilibrium yet, like T-Tauri variables).

The literature I have read in relation to DG Tau B suggests that it is not a Class 0 Herbig Haro.

Proto-planetary disks form with the star, as part of the accretionary process. In other words, the accretion disk that the star forms within becomes the protoplanetary disk that forms the planets. No proto-star, means no accretionary disk, means no planets.

The difference between a proplyd and a herbig-haro object is that the proplyds are externally illuminated, where the herbig haro objects are not (well, not significantly anyway).


Trolls generally accent something out of context and diminish the real evidence.
Yes, they do.

Captain Kremmen
02-19-12, 02:49 PM
I just did. :)


No. You didn't. You avoided the question.
And I'm not sitting here deciphering some half-cocked misinterpretation of science
as re-invented by yourself, before you get to the point.

Yet again.
Please give us three examples of how the Hubble corroborates Biblical Chronology.
And follow this with evidence, giving links where appropriate.

It's a simple question, I think.

Trippy
02-19-12, 03:18 PM
9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.

The Earth was already stable enough to have a solid surface and oceans, before the Sun was lit.
Not only that, but is it just me? Or does this passage seem to imply that all of this occured before god made gravity?

HectorDecimal
02-19-12, 04:44 PM
As far as I've seen, the only serious reference to another religion in this thread was my remark about Buddhist cosmology's countless numbers of world-systems. The Genesis account is entirely concerned with this planet and seems to assume that the Earth is unique. The closest thing to a reference in Genesis to different astronomical bodies is its treatment of the Sun, Moon and stars as lights up on the firmament. Given modern astronomy's view that the stars are distant suns and that many of them have planets orbiting them, the ancient Buddhist view may be a little closer to modern understanding (in that particular respect).

Obviously that doesn't constitute evidence that any of the rest of Buddhist belief is correct. Most likely it's just a lucky ancient guess. My point is simply that hunting around in hopes of finding the occasional loose analogy between some detail of one's chosen mythical cosmology and modern scientific understanding doesn't really produce evidence of very much.



And "that correct sequence" is the Genesis sequence, right? Non-Christian religions and atheistic scientists have rearranged that true sequence to suit their own evil anti-Biblical agendas?
This does clarify one thing. It suggests that you aren't really trying to argue that the Genesis account is consistent with scientific chronology. (That would probably be an impossible task.) Instead, it sounds like you are making the much stronger claim that much of modern scientific chronology is simply bullshit.

I'm certain there is plenty of implied content nested in our proliferous vocabularies. By that, we use words that create bifurcate and mutiplexed discussions with only a word or two. For instance "most" spawns the failing argument. What constitutes "most.?"

I think the Bible's is correct. I've only linked to a couple examples of proplyds to keep it a bit easier to follow. To discuss the first example, not really intended for this, but notice that the two brightest areas, having to be dodged by the Hubble to hide that light, are likely, being larger, made of the same elements and closer to the same birth era, if I read that properly that the shot is of a gas giant and other earthy planets. The outer gas giant is too luminous to have been formed prior to the smaller bodies, referenced by the fact they don't show up till the gas giant and sun are dodged.

Trippy
02-19-12, 05:09 PM
For instance "most" spawns the failing argument. What constitutes "most.?"
In the context of the sentence you're torturing? It would be the single event with the highest probability of occuring - IE the most likely thing to happen.

If you roll 1D6 100 times, the most likely average roll will be 3.5.

Something with a probability of 20% can still be the thing that is most likely to happen, simply because it represents a plurality within the population of events. This inspite of the fact that the odds of it not happening are still 4 in 5.

HectorDecimal
02-19-12, 06:20 PM
In the context of the sentence you're torturing? It would be the single event with the highest probability of occuring - IE the most likely thing to happen.

If you roll 1D6 100 times, the most likely average roll will be 3.5.

Something with a probability of 20% can still be the thing that is most likely to happen, simply because it represents a plurality within the population of events. This inspite of the fact that the odds of it not happening are still 4 in 5.

Yes, nonetheless a band with an accretion window and sufficient mass for life, will likely opt for that window 20% of the time, which are reasonably favorable odds. To use our own advanced star system into example, most everything that drew together into a contractring disk would still have a vast number of accreted primordial material would compact the center and it would begin to bulge, then from the center of the bulge the plasma jets begin. From what can be seen of the primordial material it will follow a toroid trajectory.

Captain Kremmen
02-19-12, 06:36 PM
Not only that, but is it just me? Or does this passage seem to imply that all of this occured before god made gravity?

Good point.
Gravity must have been one of the initial parameters set up by God before the Universe was created. Otherwise suns would not have formed from clouds of nebular gas.

To me, this is yet another instance of how the Biblical account is a creation myth rather than a Chronology. Seas would not be mixed with land at this stage, because water would have found its own level under the influence of gravity. Sea and land would already be separate.

HectorD will no doubt say that he has already explained this apparent anomaly, and that we should look to his previous posts to find the answers we crave.

Trippy
02-19-12, 06:52 PM
Good point.
Gravity must have been one of the initial parameters set up by God before the Universe was created. Otherwise suns would not have formed from clouds of nebular gas.

To me, this is yet another instance of how the Biblical account is a creation myth rather than a Chronology. Seas would not be mixed with land at this stage, because water would have found its own level under the influence of gravity. Sea and land would already be separate.

HectorD will no doubt say that he has already explained this apparent anomaly, and that we should look to his previous posts to find the answers we crave.

Unless there was no gravity, and the passage in question refers to gravity being 'switched on'.

Aqueous Id
02-19-12, 07:19 PM
By my standards
:
:

Atheism entered immediately, logic would say aatheists here already want to be recognized as a religion.

Logic would say that, by definition, atheism is a lack of religious belief.

Calling atheism a religion is—what? …“ Assume A≠B...” What is the name for that kind of statement? Before we can proceed into a freshman course in Statics and Dynamics, it would appear that we would need to complete the foundations for junior high Geometry...how about: “A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true. ”

But your premises are false:
Atheists are not religious, therefore...FAIL.



Cool! Let's, for now, leave religion out of it, and discuss physics from a neutral perspective, on second thought, from the atheistic perspective.

(A) Your thesis drags religion in, and you opened in a forum on Religion. So no.

(B) There is no such thing as an atheist perspective on Physics, as this implies there is a theist-validated version of Physics. That requires us to open the Pandora's Box of pseudoscience, which has been eternally cast into hell where it shall remain until the God of your forefathers hands you the keys to the kingdom to go unlock it.



God doesn't matter.

Ah. God matters in opening the thread, in declaring that telescope imagery confirms the fundamentalist (i.e., Genesis is not a myth) "perspective". But, in attempting to prosecute a deductive continuity to reasoning, we are allowed to pretend that the proposition is not requisite to the fundamental premise for this discussion. This is what we mean by Pseudoscience. It represents itself as valid, simply by covertly discarding essential truths along the way. So God will matter even as you pretend it is not the foregone conclusion you are attempting to “prove”.



Here are our first building blocks, the precursor environment is, we get along.
Classic mechanics: Everything to begin with. we'll build off of f = ma.
Solid Mechanics
Geological accretion
There are the first 3 references.

Cut to the chase: We understand accretion. Specifically, it has nothing to do with Genesis because the Caananites had no idea what accretion was. Thus they invented God to explain phenomena for which they had no science. This is why your thread is so utterly bogus. You are in denial of this fundamental principle around which the world of science revolves.



Let's learn about why scientifically, then when the time is right, we'll review the whole OP.

We don't dispute accretion. What we dispute is your tactics and methods, including the presupposition that this validates a myth. We dispute your selective form of reasoning that prejudices the discussion towards overt Pseudoscience. We abhor the anti-Science war waged by Creation Scientists to lord over the impressionable minds of their innocent victims, and to undermine the just, honest and morally necessary doctrines of Scientific truth. We will not yield to this abuse no matter how innocuous the "disguise" you admitted to.



I promise to eventually go above and beyond what is necessary,

Promise, promises. In God We Trust, all others pay cash. So far you are in default, and your dishonesty contaminates this attempt to steer an argument toward anything more than a manipulated result.



but before I can introduce "The Phone Book" (Thorne and Wheeler) these other areas, we need to agree on our fundamental understandings.

If that were the Bible Hubble confirms, then this would not be pseudoscience. That is why you are deferring the question of God.



Experts entered right in from the get go. Let's compare notes, derivatives, standard and non-standard deviations.

"non standard deviations" appears to be the language of pseudoscience. As long as you continue to insist on a proprietary language, all dialogue with you is doomed. Do you even know what standard deviation means, what the underlying philosophy is behind that field of mathematics? If you ascribe to Creation Science, then all discussion of probability theory is equally doomed, since fundamentalism requires us to replace all known stochastic processes with God, which is the most egregious violation of Gravitation imaginable, and renders it an invalid reference for you to cite. So first you must admit that Nature is intrinsically random, and declare that you are not espousing a deterministic pretense. Otherwise you are asking is to pretend that a crank rant is worthy of scientific review.



Fair? :)

Yeah, what I said is fair. Let's go with what I said.

Aqueous Id
02-19-12, 07:28 PM
I think the Bible's is correct.
Correct? How can a myth be correct? FAIL.
It is a well established fact that Genesis is a myth.
Prove Genesis is not a myth.

Trippy
02-19-12, 08:17 PM
Yes, nonetheless a band with an accretion window and sufficient mass for life, will likely opt for that window 20% of the time, which are reasonably favorable odds. To use our own advanced star system into example, most everything that drew together into a contractring disk would still have a vast number of accreted primordial material would compact the center and it would begin to bulge, then from the center of the bulge the plasma jets begin. From what can be seen of the primordial material it will follow a toroid trajectory.

This makes absolutely no sense in relation to anything I have said.

HectorDecimal
02-19-12, 08:49 PM
Good point.
Gravity must have been one of the initial parameters set up by God before the Universe was created. Otherwise suns would not have formed from clouds of nebular gas.

To me, this is yet another instance of how the Biblical account is a creation myth rather than a Chronology. Seas would not be mixed with land at this stage, because water would have found its own level under the influence of gravity. Sea and land would already be separate.

HectorD will no doubt say that he has already explained this apparent anomaly, and that we should look to his previous posts to find the answers we crave.

I must have missed that or I'd have responded to it. Good point. Let me throw this all a curve. Try... this all happened after gravity made God. That is what I believe, so we could say that is my theist perspective.

Aqueous Id
02-19-12, 09:03 PM
gravity made God. That is what I believe, so we could say that is my theist perspective.

Now we really are off in the weeds, aren't we.

HectorDecimal
02-19-12, 09:10 PM
It was mentioned about some illogical sequence of accretion before gravity being made by God. I responded with the logical correction that gravity preceded God, so "No," to the other premise.

HectorDecimal
02-19-12, 09:10 PM
Off in the weeds... not such a bad place to get laid...

Trippy
02-19-12, 09:17 PM
I must have missed that or I'd have responded to it. Good point. Let me throw this all a curve. Try... this all happened after gravity made God. That is what I believe, so we could say that is my theist perspective.

Then try paying attention:






9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.

The Earth was already stable enough to have a solid surface and oceans, before the Sun was lit.
Not only that, but is it just me? Or does this passage seem to imply that all of this occured before god made gravity?

If gravity existed by this point, the oceans would have already 'gathered into one place', but the bible explicitly states that it occurs on the second day, not the first day, when the sky is created.

Aqueous Id
02-20-12, 01:26 AM
It was mentioned about some illogical sequence of accretion before gravity being made by God. I responded with the logical correction that gravity preceded God, so "No," to the other premise.
Pseudoscience makes anything logical.

Arioch
02-20-12, 03:29 AM
The bible can't even get "local"(the flood, the Exodus, etc.) history right, what the hell makes anyone think that a bunch of nomadic tribes could have even guessed at what happened "in the beginning"? Personally the answer I'm sticking with right now is "we just plain don't know" as it is the truth(you know, that thing that christians are supposed to seek out).

Trippy
02-20-12, 04:42 AM
Personally the answer I'm sticking with right now is "we just plain don't know" as it is the truth(you know, that thing that christians are supposed to seek out).
This right here...

People don't like "I don't know" as an answer, and therein lies one of the greatest challenges facing science.

Captain Kremmen
02-20-12, 05:32 AM
I must have missed that or I'd have responded to it. Good point. Let me throw this all a curve. Try... this all happened after gravity made God. That is what I believe, so we could say that is my theist perspective.


So God was made by gravity.
Interesting.
How can that be a theist perspective?

Is that something you learned from the Hubble, the Bible, or did you think it up yourself?

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 07:54 AM
So God was made by gravity.
Interesting.
How can that be a theist perspective?

Is that something you learned from the Hubble, the Bible, or did you think it up yourself?

That is something logic would tell us.

Not all theist perspectives add anything to any book if it isn't in either science spectrum, atheisric or theistic, rather fill in gaps with a logical conclusion.

garbonzo
02-20-12, 09:05 AM
Ive read the whole thread. It took me about 4 hours, since every 10th word I didn't understand, lol.

Has anyone ever asked if Hector even believes in the Bible? You all assume he is a fundamentalist, yet he says he isn't. That leads me to believe that all he is saying is that he believes that the Bible is correct in that the Earth can come before the Sun ignites. Period.

Captain Kremmen
02-20-12, 09:22 AM
That is something logic would tell us.
Not all theist perspectives add anything to any book if it isn't in either science spectrum, atheisric or theistic, rather fill in gaps with a logical conclusion.

So logic tells us that gravity created God.
I haven't heard that before.
Could you tease out the argument a little,
and present it step by step?

Captain Kremmen
02-20-12, 09:31 AM
That leads me to believe that all he is saying is that he believes that the Bible is correct in that the Earth can come before the Sun ignites. Period.

Well no, he is making a claim that recent discoveries by the Hubble telescope corroborate the chronology in the Biblical creation story.
But he won't give any examples, or make any attempt to back up his assertion with data.

As to whether the Sun had planets around it before it ignited.
That is a question I don't know the answer to.
What I do know, is that such planets would not have enough light available for them to sustain trees with fruit, as claimed in the Biblical narrative.
Hubble, if it needed to, helps to disprove the idea by showing that the only light in nursery galaxies comes from suns which have already lit.
I believe the original Hubble, the Professor not the telescope, did some work on this very matter.

Now he is saying that he has derived by logic, the proposition that gravity created God. That sounds a bit crazy to me, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am challenging him to show the logical steps that lead to this idea.

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 10:20 AM
Well no, he is making a claim that recent discoveries by the Hubble telescope corroborate the chronology in the Biblical creation story.
But he won't give any examples, or make any attempt to back up his assertion with data.

As to whether the Sun had planets around it before it ignited.
That is a question I don't know the answer to.
What I do know, is that such planets would not have enough light available for them to sustain trees with fruit, as claimed in the Biblical narrative.
Hubble, if it needed to, helps to disprove the idea by showing that the only light in nursery galaxies comes from suns which have already lit.
I believe the original Hubble, the Professor not the telescope, did some work on this very matter.

Now he is saying that he has derived by logic, the proposition that gravity created God. That sounds a bit crazy to me, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am challenging him to show the logical steps that lead to this idea.

Actually I did. I understand that you claimed somewhere to "suck at math" so I provided an opportunity to walk through what I provided, step by step, and that has been sidestepped. I shouldn't have to treat anyone like a baby who keeps turniing his head when the pureed peas come into focus...

Aqueous Id
02-20-12, 10:36 AM
Actually I did. I understand that you claimed somewhere to "suck at math" so I provided an opportunity to walk through what I provided, step by step, and that has been sidestepped. I shouldn't have to treat anyone like a baby who keeps turniing his head when the pureed peas come into focus...

What kind of math presumes the initial conditions of the solar system? It's completely arbitrary to claim what happened, just as no one can say with certainty whether one or more of the planets were captured, the precise reason for the orbits and their deviations, or of the axial deviations.

To claim to know the unknowable, and to pretend to shore it up with a few formulas from freshman physics, is the hallmark of pseudoscience.

As for claiming gravity created God: equally arbitrary, and utterly absurd. This kind of nonsense, if you believe it, would mean you are a fool. If you don't, and this is some kind of game, then a pathological cause is at play. In either case. you should seek counseling.

Aqueous Id
02-20-12, 10:51 AM
Ive read the whole thread. It took me about 4 hours, since every 10th word I didn't understand, lol.

Has anyone ever asked if Hector even believes in the Bible? You all assume he is a fundamentalist, yet he says he isn't. That leads me to believe that all he is saying is that he believes that the Bible is correct in that the Earth can come before the Sun ignites. Period.


Based on his comments, he may not be aware of who he is, or incompetent to assess his "beliefs". On its face, the acknowledgement that he wishes to "validate the Bible" by a randomly designed "math" problem, implicates him in fundamentalism, because it requires an extreme literal interpretation of the most trivial element of the text - also randomly chosen - as a question of such high importance that we must now throw away all of science, and pretend that the origins of the solar system are at his command, and none of us here have anything to say about it.

It's all about him. He is either suffering from, or pretending to suffer from, a narcissism that attaches semi-delusional ideations. Pretending to know something that large communities of scientists are currently unsure of, is akin to, if not the actual manifestation of, delusions of grandeur.

This far he has refused to state a credible motive for this thread. For all we know this is his semester project in a marketing class. Of one thing I am certain: he is a liar. Otherwise he would drop the sham persona and approach with transparency.

Aqueous Id
02-20-12, 10:57 AM
Actually I did. I understand that you claimed somewhere to "suck at math" so I provided an opportunity to walk through what I provided, step by step, and that has been sidestepped.

Bullshit. Liar.

Drop the game. Put your cards on the table. Who are you, what are you really up to, and what do you want with us?

Trippy
02-20-12, 11:08 AM
Actually I did. I understand that you claimed somewhere to "suck at math" so I provided an opportunity to walk through what I provided, step by step, and that has been sidestepped. I shouldn't have to treat anyone like a baby who keeps turniing his head when the pureed peas come into focus...

Liar.

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 11:36 AM
Actually I did. I understand that you claimed somewhere to "suck at math" so I provided an opportunity to walk through what I provided, step by step, and that has been sidestepped. I shouldn't have to treat anyone like a baby who keeps turniing his head when the pureed peas come into focus...

Whoops! I responded to the wrong poster here. It was "the penguin with the shotgun whose name I forget how to spell," that admitted to suck at math somewhere in all these threads.

Nonetheless, I think a real scientist would have started working through the wiki articles on "Geological Accretion," "classic mechanics" and "solid mechanics" before continuing on with mean spirited, disruptive cheap shots at the OPoster.

A mod has told me to report you people with nothing but GIGO based insults to offer. I'm doing that.

Trippy
02-20-12, 11:45 AM
Nonetheless, I think a real scientist would have started working through the wiki articles on "Geological Accretion," "classic mechanics" and "solid mechanics" before continuing on with mean spirited, disruptive cheap shots at the OPoster.

None of these support your - I'm going to be generous and call it a hypothesis.

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 11:45 AM
Bullshit. Liar.

Drop the game. Put your cards on the table. 1.Who are you,

2. what are you really up to,

3. and what do you want with us?




You've been reported to a mod.

1. None of your buisiness.

2. Too many projects to list, but most are none of your business.

3. Decent, civilized, productive, courteous discussion.

Trippy
02-20-12, 11:47 AM
3. Decent, civilized, productive, courteous discussion.
And yet you rather persistently avoid as much when it is offered to you, going out of your way to antagonize people and then complaining when they react.

If you don't like mud in your eye, stop flinging poo.

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 11:48 AM
None of these support your - I'm going to be generous and call it a hypothesis.

I think your apology and a demonstration of your willingness to go back in the thread and address those subjects so we can learn here is in order if you want me to respond to your GIGO oriented (and poorly defined) rhetoric.

Trippy
02-20-12, 12:16 PM
I think your apology and a demonstration of your willingness to go back in the thread and address those subjects so we can learn here is in order if you want me to respond to your GIGO oriented (and poorly defined) rhetoric.

Really... That's your response?

Here's the thing...

Here (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2906063&postcount=104) I specifically addressed your hypothesis:




You also would have seen the one I blatantly pointed out as having a luminous acretion disk, yet no ignition in the star.
Herbig Haro objects, of which DG Tau B is one, have ignited stars in their core. Except Class 0 (there are three classes, defined I believe by their spectral characteristics), which have proto-stars in their cores.

So, all but the very youngest of Herbig Haro objects have ignited stars in their cores (but they haven't neccessarily reached equilibrium yet, like T-Tauri variables).

The literature I have read in relation to DG Tau B suggests that it is not a Class 0 Herbig Haro.

Proto-planetary disks form with the star, as part of the accretionary process. In other words, the accretion disk that the star forms within becomes the protoplanetary disk that forms the planets. No proto-star, means no accretionary disk, means no planets.

The difference between a proplyd and a herbig-haro object is that the proplyds are externally illuminated, where the herbig haro objects are not (well, not significantly anyway).


Trolls generally accent something out of context and diminish the real evidence
Yes, they do.

You didn't respond to it.

The closest thing I've had to a response is this (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2906128&postcount=108):




In the context of the sentence you're torturing? It would be the single event with the highest probability of occuring - IE the most likely thing to happen.

If you roll 1D6 100 times, the most likely average roll will be 3.5.

Something with a probability of 20% can still be the thing that is most likely to happen, simply because it represents a plurality within the population of events. This inspite of the fact that the odds of it not happening are still 4 in 5.
Yes, nonetheless a band with an accretion window and sufficient mass for life, will likely opt for that window 20% of the time, which are reasonably favorable odds. To use our own advanced star system into example, most everything that drew together into a contractring disk would still have a vast number of accreted primordial material would compact the center and it would begin to bulge, then from the center of the bulge the plasma jets begin. From what can be seen of the primordial material it will follow a toroid trajectory.

Which makes little or no sense in relation to the post it is responding to.

I even addressed your claim regarding the bible by pointing out the implications of genesis in regard to gravity - IE that the bible implies that the planets and the sun formed without the assistance of gravity:
Source (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2906211&postcount=119)




I must have missed that or I'd have responded to it. Good point. Let me throw this all a curve. Try... this all happened after gravity made God. That is what I believe, so we could say that is my theist perspective.
Then try paying attention:




9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.

The Earth was already stable enough to have a solid surface and oceans, before the Sun was lit.

Not only that, but is it just me? Or does this passage seem to imply that all of this occured before god made gravity

If gravity existed by this point, the oceans would have already 'gathered into one place', but the bible explicitly states that it occurs on the second day, not the first day, when the sky is created.

All of which on their own is sufficient to demonstrate empericaly that this statement of yours:

I provided an opportunity to walk through what I provided, step by step, and that has been sidestepped.
Is, if we give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you simply missed my replies, a fabrication, or if the worst - that you were aware of my replies, a 'Big Lie'.

None of which is sufficient to leave me feeling compelled to go back and revise that which I have already learned.

And that's without looking at any of the other posts in the thread.

There's an irony to this to. You keep making comments about GIGO, now, given that people are directly addressing your posts, and in your opinion, posting garbage, what does that say about your posts?

Yazata
02-20-12, 12:30 PM
Well no, he is making a claim that recent discoveries by the Hubble telescope corroborate the chronology in the Biblical creation story.

But he won't give any examples, or make any attempt to back up his assertion with data.

I guess that his rather fanciful ("imaginative" he calls it) personal interpretations of a couple of Hubble photographs are his attempt to address the sequence problem in Genesis that has God creating the Earth and life on it (seed-bearing flowering plants on land!) before bothering to light the Sun. But I doubt whether the scientists familiar with these astronomical images would agree with his ideas on what they show us.

Hector seems to think that conventional mainstream science is an atheistic conspiracy to deny the Bible. I guess that his self-appointed mission is to try to use his own unique interpretations of selected scientific data to expose that comspiracy and to reveal what he believes to be the true facts -- the truth of the Biblical chronology in this case.

Of course, a literal reading of Genesis tells us that the very first thing that God created was the Earth. So in the Genesis scheme, the Earth would seem to be the oldest thing in the universe. The Genesis creation story never mentions any other planets and seems unaware of their existence. There's certainly no hint of accretion disks or any other modern astrophysical concepts.

So Hector seems to be deviating rather dramatically from the Genesis scheme even as he tries to argue that Hubble somehow verifies it.


Now he is saying that he has derived by logic, the proposition that gravity created God. That sounds a bit crazy to me, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am challenging him to show the logical steps that lead to this idea.

It sounds crazy to me too. A lot of the stuff Hector writes does.

But if Hector really meant his 'gravity created God' suggestion seriously and wasn't just tossing it out troll-fashion in hopes of making the dogs bark, he's pretty clearly not defending a literal reading of the Genesis chronology as the ancient Hebrews actually conceived it.

He's seemingly heading towards his own personal and "imaginative" retelling of Genesis to suit some kind of hybrid theological-scientific theory of his own design.

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 12:42 PM
I guess that his rather fanciful ("imaginative" he calls it) personal interpretations of a couple of Hubble photographs are his attempt to address the sequence problem in Genesis that has God creating the Earth and life on it (seed-bearing flowering plants on land!) before bothering to light the Sun. But I doubt whether the scientists familiar with these astronomical images would agree with his ideas on what they show us.

Hector seems to think that conventional mainstream science is an atheistic conspiracy to deny the Bible. I guess that his self-appointed mission is to try to use his own unique interpretations of selected scientific data to expose that comspiracy and to reveal what he believes to be the true facts -- the truth of the Biblical chronology in this case.

Of course, a literal reading of Genesis tells us that the very first thing that God created was the Earth. So in the Genesis scheme, the Earth would seem to be the oldest thing in the universe. The Genesis creation story never mentions any other planets and seems unaware of their existence. There's certainly no hint of accretion disks or any other modern astrophysical concepts.

So Hector seems to be deviating rather dramatically from the Genesis scheme even as he tries to argue that Hubble somehow verifies it.



It sounds crazy to me too. A lot of the stuff Hector writes does.

But if Hector really meant his 'gravity created God' suggestion seriously and wasn't just tossing it out troll-fashion in hopes of making the dogs bark, he's pretty clearly not defending a literal reading of the Genesis chronology as the ancient Hebrews actually conceived it.

He's seemingly heading towards his own personal and "imaginative" retelling of Genesis to suit some kind of hybrid theological-scientific theory of his own design.

Can you find and click on the first wiki article? Classic Mechanics?

AlexG
02-20-12, 01:16 PM
In HD we're dealing with a baiting troll who claims to have answered everybody when he's just bullshitted.

Crunchy Cat
02-20-12, 01:36 PM
Mostly correct Alex.

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 02:18 PM
Mostly correct Alex.

Not at all correct CC. Have even you, a mod, simply attempted to bring one iota back from the wiki link on classic mechanics? I've reflected on what that's about ion my posts right after. They want answers, they should start there, or this will just keep winding on with these accusations. Sure, in a PM youi told me you are atheist and that I'd get no shelter from you, but are you going to debase your own position by joining in and identifying ME as the troll when others are failing to accept the answers to their own trolling tirades and multiplexes of off topic questions?

You are wrong.

Let me ask this:

Would it be better if I started a whole new thread on this? When I began (I'm typing all this information AGAIN!!!) this thread, I did not have the required 20 posts. It was an experimental thread in an area that solicits exactly this type of thread in a top end (mainstream) area. My first response to that explained that and as soon as I could, I brought in the Hubble gallery page of stars where planets were found. This has grown just a bit over the past couple years. Nothing there dismisses my initial proposition, however a few tend to validate it. To explain and evidence how that is true, it appears I have to walk these people through the physics that points to that.

So... New thread, perhaps enhanced, or tell the rest of these mean spirited, insulting posters to stop all the GIGO routines and cooperate with my repair efforts? Yes. I did imply that the OPost was defective and explained why.

The insults and abuse is uncalled for. A mod should be neutral and, in this case, reading all of the posts that have so proliferously spawned GIGO like an ascomycetal vesicle chronically evacuated on a teenager's mirror.

Aqueous Id
02-20-12, 02:33 PM
Can you find and click on the first wiki article? Classic Mechanics?

I doubt that any of your most strident critics need help from wiki as you might imagine.

Mechanics, and all science in general, has absolutely nothing to do with the creation myth, Genesis, the order of creation in the Bible, the creation of God from gravity, the interference with the Yellowstone caldera by cessation of the sunspots cycles, or the production of prophetic powers by an anomolous activity in the pineal region of the brain.

You have not yet convinced me, or probably anyone else, that you actually believe any of this, which, at a minimum, would be an orderly way for you to bail yourself out of a nonsensical proposition that is not only unsupported, but unsupportable, period.

I have repeatedly asked you to establish your motive for bringing this spurious proposition, and only after you endured repeated encouragement by others to disabuse yourself of your errors.

You started by telling me of a fantasy of being assaulted within the working areas of NSF. You seem to have come here solely to provoke strident responses, as if you were baiting us, as AlexG has already pointed out to you several times.

Now I'm asking you to cut the BS, cut to the chase. What's your game?

I have already told you we understand accretion. So that's moot. And I repeat: no one has any idea to what extent any planets may have been captured. Yes, it seems likely that the system condensed out of a disk. But so what? That's not your point. You are trying to tie this to a religion, and you have even invented one just to avoid being labeled a fundamentalist, or so you seem to think. But it doesn't change the fact that you are speaking the rubric of Creation Science, and your pretense to demonstrate this with freshman physics smacks of pseudoscience, as do your other nutty threads.

Whatever your game is, it's not going to work. To succeed here, you have to bring a proposal that has a chance of generating informed dialogue. For some reason you are doing the exact opposite.

The question is: why?

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 03:15 PM
I doubt that any of your most strident critics need help from wiki as you might imagine.

Then they should have no problem demonstrating that.

Mechanics, and all science in general, has absolutely nothing to do with the creation myth, Genesis, the order of creation in the Bible, the creation of God from gravity, the interference with the Yellowstone caldera by cessation of the sunspots cycles, or the production of prophetic powers by an anomolous activity in the pineal region of the brain.

If that was true... any of it... we'd be sending messages by carrier pigeon right now... at best. Even speculating all that is myth without a shred aof truth, if there was no classic mechanics involved those creating the alleged myths would have been eaten by a predator.

You have not yet convinced me, or probably anyone else, that you actually believe any of this, which, at a minimum, would be an orderly way for you to bail yourself out of a nonsensical proposition that is not only unsupported, but unsupportable, period.

You really have missed a lot of this haven't you?

I have repeatedly asked you to establish your motive for bringing this spurious proposition, and only after you endured repeated encouragement by others to disabuse yourself of your errors.

Yes. I'm glad you admit to joining in on perpetuating the turmoil and doing so by missing the replies that evidence the lack of errancy on my part, while allowing the mean spirited disruptions that began at the get go. Effectively you are demonstrating human nature being such to kick the guy who's faced with villagers bearing torches and pitchforks. The content of my truth has been buried in the witch hunt and here you are participating in it.

You started by telling me of a fantasy of being assaulted within the working areas of NSF. You seem to have come here solely to provoke strident responses, as if you were baiting us, as AlexG has already pointed out to you several times.

You should read up on the difference between an analogy and a fantasy. Don't you think this category being where it is in the main stream is bait for any theist coming here? An innocent theist comes in sees an invite to compare religions, does so and out comes every mean spirited atheist under the bridge to destroy something that just might threaten their own religion of atheism. This leaves me the question: Are there any mods here that are theists, even theists of a Bible religion?

Now I'm asking you to cut the BS, cut to the chase. What's your game?

From the perspective of this thread? To point out that in a forming star system, the smaller planetary bodies, by classic physics, that being aligned with astrophysics, will be well under way, even bearing advanced lifeforms, prior to the IGNITION of the star. ALL of that is proliferous. From the deeper perspective of "my game," I do the same as any other scientist should, aim to help humanity. To cut the BS I'd have to be able to delete the vast majority of posts from the mean spirited ones you seem so quick to caress.

I have already told you we understand accretion. So that's moot. And I repeat: no one has any idea to what extent any planets may have been captured. Yes, it seems likely that the system condensed out of a disk. But so what? That's not your point. You are trying to tie this to a religion, and you have even invented one just to avoid being labeled a fundamentalist, or so you seem to think. But it doesn't change the fact that you are speaking the rubric of Creation Science, and your pretense to demonstrate this with freshman physics smacks of pseudoscience, as do your other nutty threads.

Now THAT, judging by the sidestepping of the issue, sounds like BS. INventing a religion? Although that is not my intent in this thread, I suppose it could be viewed as a new FACTION of an existing religion.

Whatever your game is, it's not going to work. To succeed here, you have to bring a proposal that has a chance of generating informed dialogue. For some reason you are doing the exact opposite.

I believe I just offered two suggestions. 1. Start a new, enhanced, if not better written, thread. 2. Repair this thread with the cooperation of the ones I now see as nothing sort of a flash mob.

The question is: why?

Because I'd actually like to resolve this into a meaningful discussion, or start a new one with basically the same topic refined. This war between the atheist and theist religions seems to be a hot topic here. Why not participate?




That's the reason why I haven't abandoned you all as a lost cause. I'm not a troll and I'd like to see others here stop giving me reason to think that they are.

Trippy
02-20-12, 03:42 PM
That's the reason why I haven't abandoned you all as a lost cause. I'm not a troll and I'd like to see others here stop giving me reason to think that they are.
And yet you continue to avoid addressing direct comments, questions and criticisms of your ideas.

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 04:02 PM
And yet you continue to avoid addressing direct comments, questions and criticisms of your ideas.

I'm sure its axiomatic based upon that post you quoted from where I just addressed Auquaes' tirade of direct comments, questions and criticisms of my ideas.

New thread or cooperate in repairing this one?

A direct question directed to you.

Trippy
02-20-12, 04:35 PM
I'm sure its axiomatic based upon that post you quoted from where I just addressed Auquaes' tirade of direct comments, questions and criticisms of my ideas.
As a native anglophone I'm having a good deal of difficulty parsing this as a meaningful sentence.

You're sure what is axiomatic? 'It' is the third person neutral personal pronoun (the baby had its first apple) or as a dummy pronoun (it rained last night). In either case, there is something else stated or implied that 'it' refers to.

Even if we presume it was a typo, and you meant it's "I'm sure it's axiomatic based upon..." still makes no sense.

For example, in preparing this response I copy the quote tag from the first portion, and paste in the second portion inserting a second /quote at the end of the relevant portion of your post to indicate where your comments end and mine begin.

It's not that hard, and your current approach only confuses matters, especially when you do things like insert your own commentary into somebody elses post.

The only posts I quoted were posts that I personally have made in this thread that are relevant to the OP but remain unaddressed. They have no bearing on Aqueous IDs comments which were a general criticism of your approach, methodology, attitude and so on.

None of your responses to Aqueous ID have any relevance to any of the points that I made, so there is nothing that I can infer as being an axiom from either his criticisms or your responses.

Of course, the problems exemplified in communicating with you, by your reply to me are only exacerbated by your unwillingness to try and undertsand how to use the forum features.

Real science relies on accurate communication.


New thread or cooperate in repairing this one?

A direct question directed to you.
The blame for the sidetracking of the thread lies squarely on your shoulders. The questions asked, and counterpoints raised have all been valid, including the dissection of the bible (remember what you titled the thread) and criticisms of its continuity and self consistency.

The reason the thread has become detracted is because of your unwillingness to address counterpoints raised by your various interlocutors, and your insistence on relying upon the kind of chop logic that I wouldn't let my children get away with.

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 04:54 PM
As a native anglophone I'm having a good deal of difficulty parsing this as a meaningful sentence.

You're sure what is axiomatic? 'It' is the third person neutral personal pronoun (the baby had its first apple) or as a dummy pronoun (it rained last night). In either case, there is something else stated or implied that 'it' refers to.

Even if we presume it was a typo, and you meant it's "I'm sure it's axiomatic based upon..." still makes no sense.

For example, in preparing this response I copy the quote tag from the first portion, and paste in the second portion inserting a second /quote at the end of the relevant portion of your post to indicate where your comments end and mine begin.

It's not that hard, and your current approach only confuses matters, especially when you do things like insert your own commentary into somebody elses post.

The only posts I quoted were posts that I personally have made in this thread that are relevant to the OP but remain unaddressed. They have no bearing on Aqueous IDs comments which were a general criticism of your approach, methodology, attitude and so on.

None of your responses to Aqueous ID have any relevance to any of the points that I made, so there is nothing that I can infer as being an axiom from either his criticisms or your responses.

Of course, the problems exemplified in communicating with you, by your reply to me are only exacerbated by your unwillingness to try and undertsand how to use the forum features.

Real science relies on accurate communication.


The blame for the sidetracking of the thread lies squarely on your shoulders. The questions asked, and counterpoints raised have all been valid, including the dissection of the bible (remember what you titled the thread) and criticisms of its continuity and self consistency.

The reason the thread has become detracted is because of your unwillingness to address counterpoints raised by your various interlocutors, and your insistence on relying upon the kind of chop logic that I wouldn't let my children get away with.



Originally Posted by HectorDecimal
New thread or cooperate in repairing this one?

A direct question directed to you.

Trippy
02-20-12, 05:01 PM
New thread or cooperate in repairing this one?

A direct question directed to you.
Asked and answered.

Bells
02-20-12, 05:01 PM
I would suggest, Hector, that you respond to the questions asked of you in this thread and also provide the examples needed and evidence to back up your claims.

Yazata
02-20-12, 05:12 PM
From the perspective of this thread? To point out that in a forming star system, the smaller planetary bodies, by classic physics, that being aligned with astrophysics, will be well under way, even bearing advanced lifeforms, prior to the IGNITION of the star.

I think that you could make a pretty good argument that there would be a gaseous accretion disk before the star ignited.

Making a convincing argument that actual planets would have formed, as opposed to accretion disks of rocks, dust and gas, is going to be a lot more difficult.

Making an argument that bombardment of planetesmals would have already ceased, and that it ceased long enough before the star ignited that the planets would have had time to cool and form solid surfaces and water oceans, is probably going to be an impossible task in my opinion. The idea sounds a little outlandish from the point of view of conventional planetary science and doesn't seem to be consistent with our solar system evidence.

And finally, the phrase "even bearing advanced lifeforms" seems to have just been slipped in gratuitously without justification. The odds of that being the case (particularly the odds that the Earth's land surface already hosted flowering seed-bearing plants) before the Sun ignited appear vanishingly unlikely and the proposition almost certainly untrue. And having said that, the origin of life and its evolutionary history on Earth isn't a matter that's best addressed with a Wikipedia page on classical mechanics anyway.


Now THAT, judging by the sidestepping of the issue, sounds like BS. INventing a religion? Although that is not my intent in this thread, I suppose it could be viewed as a new FACTION of an existing religion.

Gravity created God? What was up with that remark of yours? Did you mean it literally or ironically? It isn't an idea that Christians (or Muslims, Jews or any theists) would be likely to accept.

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 05:14 PM
I would suggest, Hector, that you respond to the questions asked of you in this thread and also provide the examples needed and evidence to back up your claims.

Then you are wanting to cooperate in repairing this thread? To do that appropriately, I can review it and make a list of intermediate posts to delete, then do exactly that. Without help, Occam's Razor would suggest a new thread.

Again,

A DIRECT question:

New thread or cooperation in repairing the original?

If I cannot get a direct answer to a very simple direct question then why would anyone on this forum be expected to give a direct answer to anyone else's?

Trippy
02-20-12, 05:20 PM
Again,

A DIRECT question:

New thread or cooperation in repairing the original?
This question has already been answered.

You might also want to check the forum rules.


If I cannot get a direct answer to a very simple direct question then why would anyone on this forum be expected to give a direct answer to anyone else's?
Because there is an element of reciprocity to the arrangement.

People are unlikely to give you a direct answer to your new question unless you first give them direct answers to their old questions.

And why should they? They're under no obligation to extend to you a courtosey that have thus far refused to offer.

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 05:21 PM
Making a convincing argument that actual planets would have formed, as opposed to accretion disks of rocks, dust and gas, is going to be a lot more difficult.


Are you suggesting that the rocks, dust and gas would simply orbit some central axis if all was uniform, perfectly spaced without any contracting forces involved?

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 05:25 PM
This question has already been answered.

You might also want to check the forum rules.


Because there is an element of reciprocity to the arrangement.

People are unlikely to give you a direct answer to your new question unless you first give them direct answers to their old questions.

And why should they? They're under no obligation to extend to you a courtosey that have thus far refused to offer.

I believe Occam's Razor can offer a direct answer. Yazata seems to have an alternative to both. Ask new questions, in a courteous, organized and non-multiplex manner. Get an answer, or a question that asks for clarification, such as just happened.

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 05:27 PM
BTW... I did check the rules. This thread is in line with them and for this individual forum as well.

Trippy
02-20-12, 05:41 PM
I believe Occam's Razor can offer a direct answer.
Yes, and it excludes your hypothesis.


Ask new questions, in a courteous, organized and non-multiplex manner.
I have repeatedly asked questions in a courteous and organized manner, you however have repeatedly refused to answer them.


Get an answer, or a question that asks for clarification, such as just happened.
I won't hold my breath, least I end up looking like this:
http://www.greatorlandodiscounts.com/blue1.jpg

Trippy
02-20-12, 05:42 PM
BTW... I did check the rules. This thread is in line with them and for this individual forum as well.

Right, but do you think that reposting the same ideas without any new information, and without having addressed valid criticisms would be in line with the rules?

AlphaNumeric
02-20-12, 05:50 PM
Given the general incoherent and evasion of HD's posts can someone explain to me how he thinks classical mechanics supports any kind of Bible claim? Speaking as someone familiar with CD on a level a bit beyond 'I read the Wiki page on it' and also know a fair few extremely good astrophysicists I don't for a second think such a claim can be justified but I want to see what the actual claim is. HD's tendency to dodge the issue just makes things less clear.

HD, your claims of being somehow an engineer are becoming more and more dubious with each passing post.

Captain Kremmen
02-20-12, 06:36 PM
Originally Posted by HectorDecimal
New thread or cooperate in repairing this one?


There's nothing wrong with this thread, except your unwillingness to back up your assertions with evidence.
Just start to do that and we'll be fine.
Let's repair this thread by your backing up your propositions with actual science.

Pictures from the Hubble confirm problems with the Bible chronology, rather than corroborating the Biblical account.
The opposite of your proposition.

Two major problems with the Bible Chronology.
1. Trees with fruit cannot grow before the sun is lit. Not enough light available.
2. When God separated the land from the sea, he shouldn't have needed to do it.
They would already have separated under the influence of the gravity he used to form suns and planets.

As for "gravity created God". No, it's not logic. It's nonsense.
It made me wonder whether you might be trolling, to tell you the truth.
I hope not.
Can you explain that idea further please.

HectorDecimal
02-20-12, 07:16 PM
Post 161.... Wow! I think we could have had a really interesting post in half that. Okay, so everyone pretty much opts for Occam's Razor?

Crunchy Cat
02-20-12, 08:36 PM
Not at all correct CC. Have even you, a mod, simply attempted to bring one iota back from the wiki link on classic mechanics? I've reflected on what that's about ion my posts right after. They want answers, they should start there, or this will just keep winding on with these accusations.

I am not a moderator. Aside from that, you are making quite an extraordinary claim and that claim requires extraordinary evidence. The onus is completely on you to demonstrate that the claim is true. I have no issue using links to support your position but if your evidence is to tell someone to read through a wiki article and then reflect on it, well that's not a demonstration. Let me give you an example of what I mean by a demonstration that a claim is true.

My Claim: Sulfur hexafluoride is an invisible gas heavier than air.
My Demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PJTq2xQiQ0
My Demonstration's Description: A fish tank is filled with sulfur hexafluoride and a tinfoil raft is placed on top. The raft's weight is lighter than sulfur hexafluoride but heavier than air. The raft will literally float on top of the sulfur hexafluoride (it looks like it's floating in mid air in the tank); thus, showing that the sulfur hexafluoride is in fact heavier than air.



Sure, in a PM youi told me you are atheist and that I'd get no shelter from you, but are you going to debase your own position by joining in and identifying ME as the troll when others are failing to accept the answers to their own trolling tirades and multiplexes of off topic questions?

I have never had any PM conversations with you. You are likely confusing me for someone else (my guess is some moderator); however, I won't rule out that you might be insane ;3.



You are wrong.

Let me ask this:

Would it be better if I started a whole new thread on this? When I began (I'm typing all this information AGAIN!!!) this thread, I did not have the required 20 posts. It was an experimental thread in an area that solicits exactly this type of thread in a top end (mainstream) area. My first response to that explained that and as soon as I could, I brought in the Hubble gallery page of stars where planets were found. This has grown just a bit over the past couple years. Nothing there dismisses my initial proposition, however a few tend to validate it. To explain and evidence how that is true, it appears I have to walk these people through the physics that points to that.

You should absolutely walk people through all the physics that go into supporting your claim. It is an extraordinary claim after all.



So... New thread, perhaps enhanced, or tell the rest of these mean spirited, insulting posters to stop all the GIGO routines and cooperate with my repair efforts? Yes. I did imply that the OPost was defective and explained why.

Whether you start a new thread or refactor this one is up to you. I would however suggest being very clear about your specific claim(s) and have very clear evidence.



The insults and abuse is uncalled for. A mod should be neutral and, in this case, reading all of the posts that have so proliferously spawned GIGO like an ascomycetal vesicle chronically evacuated on a teenager's mirror.

I am not a moderator.

Captain Kremmen
02-21-12, 01:15 AM
Post 161.... Wow! I think we could have had a really interesting post in half that.

At least it was grammatical and made sense.

James R
02-21-12, 04:09 AM
It seems HectorDecimal wants a new thread on this topic. So, please continue here.