Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Quote:

It is not that simple

pretty much it is. Ever since Henry Smit Williams proposed a "Theory of Everything About the Planet Earth" in 1933, the rest has been a whirlwind of discovery.

Quote:

why didn't your comets deliver water to the other planets of the SS, and have done so only to the Earth.

Where did you get this idea from, Uranus?

Quote:

Where do you see this in the bubbles ... of the zyrconium crystals, for example?

no from hydrogeography, its a very exact science these days. Im only moderately fortunate to know where to gather this data from sources readily available (you can do it too but you just seem to turn your back on the tools). However, you constantly demonstrate that "The hardest thing to do is to explain the obvious"

In your bio you list that you work in IT, really? what is your area of expertise, ethnic cooking?

You seem to want to take up a belligerent posture and re argue information that is readily available. If that's the case , might I suggest that you get a library card dude, don't bother me. However If you want to debate something , lay out your postulates and your concerns,dont try to lay some dumb logic snare . It wont work with ,most of us here, weve seen and heard all the styles of misinformation
For future reference Id like to know whether you are;

1. Experimentally doubting all the available information out therein that case we argue fact v fact.
or
2. Does your religious worldview not allow you to think on your own.

PICK ONE PLEASE, maybe then I wont be so impatient with you.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Who said I was trying to have a logical argument? You can't have a logical argument with illogical people (like yourself and Romeo). I learned that long ago.

Also, never did I say I was a "top Biologist". Anyone who has been through a beginners Bio class knows a lot more than you and Romeo. It's not some great feat lol.

And you can stop trying to be "mr. logical" now. You aren't fooling anyone and you really just sound like you're trying way too hard.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Where did you get this idea from, Uranus?

No, I get this idea from the quantum logic of the probability theory applied to the SS ... according to which if your unsustainable theory about that comets bringing water to the planets of the SS is true, these comets should have brought water to all the planets of the SS pro rate the hit expectancy, which means that all the planets of the SS should have water pro rate the water of the Earth. Do you know how much should be the water on Mars for example in this case?

Quote:

"The hardest thing to do is to explain the obvious"

You don't have enough hydrogen in the zirconium bubbles (the atmosphere above the lava planet) 'to make' the oceans. You are missing the chemical balance of your chemical equations by the said time. You are missing the math, FM.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The HUMAN GENOME PROJCT has been one of the biggest collaborative interdisciplinary worldwide events since the Columbian Exchange.

That statement does not answer the question posed which was are we ready for the consequences? The possible consequences only come into play with the success of the project you silly moocow.

The Newsnight discussion was between 3 people who were billed as scientists. They agreed we are ready for it if we can deal with certain aspects but they had nothing to offer, like you don't, on that important matter.

And that crap about a "new app" is so obvious a non sequitur that it is proof of your stupidity that you think it can fly here even if it does with the dumb clucks you are used to emptying your lungs at. Maybe you don't know that it's a non sequitur. That would be something to ponder for a man representing Science. Peer-reviewing would be very smooth if scientists are all of such a mind. It could look like rubber-stamping.

Go make your currach pool-worthy.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

That's complete gibberish fm as a response to Herald's question. It's a long-winded Ignore even if it looks good to the chumps who up-thumb your posts.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

You don't have enough hydrogen in the zirconium bubbles (the atmosphere above the lava planet)

Id ask you to explain this but Im sure you have no idea either.

Code:

    

 No, I get this idea from the quantum logic of the probability theory applied to the SS

Now we get Quantum "logic". Does that mean that youre both fucked up nd correct at the same time?
Explain your root of "probability theory" What if I told you that there si water on several planets (not to mention the evidence of [ast water on others.?
Would you believe the scientists who present this evidence?

Your problem is you have no ammo, no point, s well s no idea of what you speak, but that int going to get in your ay of trying to sound half smart. Keep working on it, Im sure youll string some words together ina logical string one day.
SO I GUESS, youre not going to take a stab at my word problem above?
Its really not too difficult when you break it into bite-sized chunks.

1 Reply

@spendius,

If youd have just let it go, people would have thought that you were an idiot by not knowing that the Genome Map has already been done. By continuing your empty headed glossolalia youve removed all doubt.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

No, I get this idea from the quantum logic of the probability theory applied to the SS ... according to which if your unsustainable theory about that comets bringing water to the planets of the SS is true, these comets should have brought water to all the planets of the SS pro rate the hit expectancy, which means that all the planets of the SS should have water pro rate the water of the Earth.

Planets lose water (and other gasses and liquids) over time depending on a host of other conditions. In addition, the original stellar disk was stratified by gravity, density and cosmic radiation which is exactly why planets at different orbital locations have different compositions, and why we have "rocky" planets in the inner orbits and gaseous planets in the outer orbits.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I'd ask you to explain this but I'm sure you have no idea either.

If the water has not come from the outer space it should have always been on the Earth -from the very beginning. The hydrogen should have been on the planet (in some form) onto the time of formation of the planet. Where is the hydrogen on the Moon - which once has been part of the Earth system? Gone away due to the lack of gravitation. How ... and where is the proof?
O.K. now suppose that the lava planet (the Earth at some initial point of time) has had some hydrogen in the atmosphere. How long would that hydrogen survive ... over a surface of burning lava? If it is hydrogen gas - several nanoseconds ... if it does not blow up the planet?
What about the option of on-surface hydrogen compounds? Can you name any hydrogen compounds that can withstand a furnace of burning lava?
Assumptions -ferrihydrate, hydrous ferric oxide, hydrated silica, hydrogen terminated silicon ... in 'industrial quantities', enough to form the world ocean?! Where is the proof for that, FM?

farmerman wrote:

Explain your root of "probability theory"

Suppose you have a model of the SS ... on your wall at home, where all the planets are rotating as they actually rotate in the real SS.
Now start throwing at random angles and heights and from different distance small balloons, full of water. Can you explain how all the water will always fall only on the Earth?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

If youd have just let it go, people would have thought that you were an idiot by not knowing that the Genome Map has already been done. By continuing your empty headed glossolalia youve removed all doubt.

You have nothing to say.

Sheer drivel fm. I had conceded the Map is, not done, but well developed. It was the point. There are no economic or emotional consequences to ask your opinion on if it is not "done". And that's what you were asked about.

You can assert that I'm an idiot all you want but that's not a reason to demonstrate, unambiguously, that you are one.

The advanced state of the Map, and the power it confers, was taken for granted in the Newsnight discussion. It was where they started from. It was the point of having the discussion.

Now that is clear, or should be to any average person, do you think we are ready for its application? I can easily see the temptations it offers but what about any drawbacks. Selling it on the former whilst having the latter on Ignore is somewhat like creeping in the back door in stockinged feet.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Planets lose water (and other gasses and liquids) over time depending on a host of other conditions.

So that was - planets lose water, for I was thinking that it has been solar flux of Helium 3 that has been decomposed into hydrogen as result of the kinetics when hitting the EM shield of Earth.
He3 could explain also how did the hydrogen in the sulphuric acid on Venus appeared ... and why there is not so much water on Mars.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Assumptions -ferrihydrate, hydrous ferric oxide, hydrated silica, hydrogen terminated silicon ... in 'industrial quantities', enough to form the world ocean?! Where is the proof for that, FM?

You are really quite an idiot. I think you just go on Google searches and then spout words that you want me to believe that you even know of what you speak. (Ive been in this racket for many decades and have been talked to by many different Bullshit artists and you aint even close).
For example, All the above (hydroxides and oxyhydroxides) would have only occurred AFTER the planet was already generating free oxygen and that would have required substantial water and blue green algae at work. (with exception of H term silicon (we calls em silals). That's a man made substance used in etching with HF.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

these comets should have brought water to all the planets of the SS pro rate the hit expectancy, which means that all the planets of the SS should have water pro rate the water of the Earth.

That would require the assumption that all the planets are located where earth is relative to the sun and are the same size, age, and composition of the earth.

Gravity, solar wind, electromagnetic field all play a part in a planet's atmosphere. Can you argue that that Jupiter and the earth both lose the same molecules at the same rate?

2 Replies

@parados,

6 other satellites in the Solar System contain water as ice or free water beneath ice. 3 Planets contain or , in the case of Mars (have contained) free water.
Nearby stars hve shown us that 19 of thir plnets or moons contain water (by spectral analyses)

Water is a ubiquitous substance and, as we know Aman a Iman.

Mars represents a condition of almost a diamagnetic property (the
dynamo has ceased), and the water has been stripped off.
But remember, the evidence of surface water .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

All the above (hydroxides and oxyhydroxides) would have only occurred AFTER the planet was already generating free oxygen and that would have required substantial water and blue green algae at work.

Well fm---where did that stuff come from? How did the planet generate free oxygen?

You must have forgotten my little parable about the bus coming round the corner not being a scientific explanation of where it actually came from.

Is there a statistical correlation between not fawning at your words and being an idiot?

1 Reply

@parados,

where Herald seems to be going is the "firmament" argument of Creationists. Because the deuterium'Protium ratios of the earth /moon waters appear to be different than that of Oort cloud bolides , it has led to a series of recent "hypotheses" that the earths water was always here and was merely "hnging out" as the planet went throught the Hadean time.

Creationists have so little to grab onto so we may as well humor them by asking them where do they think the water came from??

Ill betcha we get something from Genesis.

1 Reply

@spendius,

have you been lying when you began telling me that you are a chemit?
Where do oxyhydroxides come from? it shouldn't be hard if you have ANY idea about reaction kinetics.
I think youre just a fraud. or maybe, in the UK you use the word "chemist" to mean " drug store pill pusher"

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ill betcha we get something from Genesis.

Ockham would have approved after watching you floundering about using insults and bombastic bluster.

1 Reply

@spendius,

between Herald and me, Im the only one who's mde sense. He hs no idea of what hes speaking of, and youre too damn dumb to know it.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

... many different Bullshit artists

Before calling me 'many different Bullshit artists' you have to prove that I am an artist, in the first place ... or you are talking just so, in directions. ... At least my hobby is not cracking and oil drilling.

farmerman wrote:

I think you just go on Google searches and then spout words that you want me to believe that you even know of what you speak.

As an 'artist' I may tell you that I am not entirely bad on Google.
O.K. you don't recognise Google as a method for compiling knowledge and making quick and precise references. How do you expect for the plausible suggestions to be made? Read from the books, re-compiled from papers and reports ... and newspapers, or what? ... and what is the difference between digital and offline information? Can you prove that the information and the data on papers have better quality than the digital data on the net?
FM, the truth of the matter is that you don't have any plausible explanation for the water on the Earth - even the slightest.
Suppose the water really came from your favourite comets - how did it go there in the first place ... before that ... and what part of the water arrived when? Is all the water on the Earth at one and the same 'age'? Let me guess - you are missing the calibration at the 'zero age' ... not to say that you don't have even a definition for the zero.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know