Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

"When were the heavy elements created and by what means?

No, no, FM, the real question is: Why don't you tell us the number of the comets, needed to 'fill the ocean'. ... and when you say the number (if you are able to calculate it for life) I am going to comment who is the intellectually disabled and why he is acting in ego-centrical and counterproductive way. For nowadays it is much more easy to make assessments rather than making some elementary calculations.

As far as the comments of your fellow-bigbanist are concerned (that hydrogen is 85% of the Universe), why don't you tell him, that if 90 to 99% of the universe is unknown there is no way for him to know that 85% of it comprises hydrogen.

farmerman wrote:

The Big Bang created elements of the H/He and some of the first octet. All heavier elements came later and seem to cluster around galaxies and stars.

It is commendable that you are dealing with the heavy metals now, but you still don't know how did the water come down on the Earth ... only ... in such cosmologic quantities.
There is also one more question: How can a stochastic process design a star (our Sun) that would be able to support life only on one of its planets (the Earth) ... for millions of years ... and cannot repeat the odds anywhere else in the universe?

3 Replies

@Herald,

So in your world, if we can't see it then it doesn't exist?

0 Replies

@parados,

I can't help sympathising with Herald to a certain extent because just looking around does suggest that something miraculous happened.

Where did a snake's venom come from? It having evolved implies a time when it didn't have venom. A long time.

I know a Darwinian would say that a synergy of small changes took place which came together as a rattlesnake of which venom in the teeth, gradually increasing in strength until an equilibrium was reached, a cost benefit analysis operating mindlessly, was only one. But looking at a rattlesnake it does seem something of a miracle that those small changes happened to come together just so and be adapted to conditions which change slowly enough for evolution to occur to keep pace. Or not in some cases.

The tendency which sub-Darwinians habitually have to study one characteristic of a creature at once is, imo, an unfortunate one.

It can be a bit of a trial doing it with barmaids. There is something miraculous about them too. Being a product of the Big Bang doesn't quite do a barmaid justice.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

No, no, FM, the real question is: Why don't you tell us the number of the comets, needed to 'fill the ocean'. ... and when you say the number (if you are able to calculate it for life) I am going to comment who is the intellectually disabled and why he is acting in ego-centrical and counterproductive way. For nowadays it is much more easy to make assessments rather than making some elementary calculations.

This is actually funny. If you recall, I asked you precisely the exact same question a few pages back and you ignored it as an "irrelevancy". Now you seem to want to make the issue. Since I started the question I deserve first answer. Give it a shot and make your ranges of comets fall within a reasonable mass based upon evidence (like Chixclub v Cape York)

There ya go with the "stochastic process" without setting definitions, evidence and ranges.(I thought you said you were in IT? are you a student ?

Once more

Quote:

but you still don't know how did the water come down on the Earth ... only ... in such cosmologic quantities.

That's an honest assessment but I assume you hve an answer?
My ork measures the progression of life and its tracks v the geologic time scale. Its a way we have to "keep score" of resources and structure. I can strongly evidence most all of the life on this planet wrt time. That's a trick you Creationists have yet to perform. You have NO evidence other than myth. Try not to "make believe" that yours is empirical or loaded with evidence because its not. I understand why you don't want to reveal your "science". Your afraid that it wont stand up to scrutiny.

Now, answer my question since it is no longer "irrelevant"

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

No, no, FM, the real question is: Why don't you tell us the number of the comets, needed to 'fill the ocean'. ...

You do know that comets come in different sizes, right?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

and they come in at different times. lessee , 700,000,000 years times 365 days is about 2.555 X 10^11 days.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Herald is very confused and is probably not much more than 14 years old.

FM, we all know that you have mind-blowing abilities to determine age, but I can assure you that I am neither 14, not even 14 +/-14. If you calibrate all the ages announced in that post in the same way it's no wonder that you are making the claims you make.
BTW what do you mean by that 14: underdeveloped retard, or what? Don't you think that there might be some people on the net at that age reading your deep philosophical inferences.
FM, we have also been at the age of 14 ... some time ago.

Quote:

Maybe we don't fully understand WHEN or by WHAT MEANS the water was "delivered". However, what does that have to do with the validity of the evidence regarding evolution?

Everything. One cannot without determining the origin of water have a theory about the evolution of life ... the main precondition for which is water.
One cannot make inferences on quicksand, but seeing how you are doing it with ease I am really 'very confused' ... as you claim.

Quote:

We have good strong evidence that first life on the planet corresponds to a time at or slightly before 3.85 Bya.

... which does not prove anything ... especially about causality. It proves that for the first time life has been detected on Earth 3.85 Bya (if this is the age) ... only this and nothing else. You have no evidences of how - neither from where ... nor why.

Quote:

Maybe this question should be (how many comets per year for 0.7 Billion Years does it take to add water to a volume of a planet who's total amount of water is roughly 0.6% of the planets volume)

If all the water appeared on the Earth at once, where the key word here is IF ... for you might have detected 1 liter of water in the rocks by that time (3.85 Bya). You don't know how much has been the water by that time ... notwithstanding its origin.
This may answer also the question of your fellow-evolutionist, why did the hydrogen not come from the '75% of the hydrogen in the universe' (without any evidences BTW that there has been that much hydrogen on that place (around the Earth) by that time (3.85 Bya)). Besides this claim that 75% of the universe is hydrogen is very frivolous.
According to your personal theory of the things (that all the water on the Earth has been formed at once at some point 3.85 Bya) this could happen only when the ratio of oxygen:hydrogen in the air reaches 16 g O2 to 2 g H2.
If the hydrogen and oxygen have always been there (in the 'universe' in fixed concentrations), what has caused them to start changing (out of a sudden)?
My suggestion was that if the O2 has 'always been there - fixed', the concentration of hydrogen should have been changing continuously - to reach at some point the ratio of 16:2 for the 'creation' of water ... there must have been some process for continuous production (or loss) of hydrogen. Helium may not be very serious ... but it must be something like that.

4 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

BTW what do you mean by that 14: underdeveloped retard, or what?

No, just the naivete of youth

Quote:

(WAter-means)
Everything. One cannot without determining the origin of water have a theory about the evolution of life

Total Creationist bullshit. SCience is so compartmentalized that most folks don't know what their colleagues are doing just next door.

Only Creationists have a fraudulent need to poke their silly pointer at, say, a geneticist and the geneticist of not knowing anything about evolution because the geneticist doesn't know when free standing water was on the planet. (That's a geologists pervue and Ive already, several times,(Probably boring the **** out of everyone else who "gets it") given you the facts associated with WHEN FREE WATER WAS creating sedimentary rocks

The fact that you don't accept it (but never give any reasons or present any of your own facts) , is none of my concern. In ignorance lies bliss, so remain blissful of sedimentology and stratigraphy.

NOW, lastly this;

Quote:

If all the water appeared on the Earth at once, where the key word here is IF ... for you might have detected 1 liter of water in the rocks by that time (3.85 Bya). You don't know how much has been the water by that time ... notwithstanding its origin.

And we do detect many liters of water. YOU don't seem to understand how forensics works do you?
If water had eroded rock , making gravel, sand and muds, then these sediments are "laid down and cemented" forming rock layers of sedimentary rock. HOW CAN YOU DENY THAT WATER WASNT ALREADY THERE DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE ON THE PLANET?
We are doing exactly the same analyses using the Mars Rovers. There we are looking at sedimentary structures and streamways and rocks that were lid down in water. Why don't you accept the same thing for earth?? SPECIAL CREATION?
From 3.8 Billion years ago till present, weve got ample evidence of plenty of WATER DEPOSITED ROCK AND SANDSTONE ETC.
I don't know how much more simply I can present that

1 Reply

Water in fact seems to be (and have been) firly common in the solar system, not alone on earth. Venus, which is hellishly hot and whose atmospher consists mainly of CO2 (notice a correlation there?), still has traces of water vapor. The thinking goes, since Venus doesn't have a magnetosphere to protect it as the earth does, solar pressure has forced it out and away over the millions of years. Mars too has what's considered pretty good evidence of water (some of the evidence found jst this year), and Cassini seems to have discovered a sea of water under the ice on Saturn's moon Enceladus (also just this year). There's a lot of it, it's been around for a long time, and comets are looking better and better as the source, raining down on the earth over tens of billions of years (look at the moon bor evidence of such impacts, still clear where there is no atmospher to scour them away).

0 Replies

Water in fact seems to be (and have been) firly common in the solar system, not alone on earth. Venus, which is hellishly hot and whose atmospher consists mainly of CO2 (notice a correlation there?), still has traces of water vapor. The thinking goes, since Venus doesn't have a magnetosphere to protect it as the earth does, solar pressure has forced it out and away over the millions of years. Mars too has what's considered pretty good evidence of water (some of the evidence found jst this year), and Cassini seems to have discovered a sea of water under the ice on Saturn's moon Enceladus (also just this year). There's a lot of it, it's been around for a long time, and comets are looking better and better as the source, raining down on the earth over tens of billions of years (look at the moon bor evidence of such impacts, still clear where there is no atmospher to scour them away).

Incidentally, life predates the existence of an oxygen-rich atmosphere by more than a billion years. So the ater didn't come from hydrogen and oxygen combining it the atmosphere as you're hypotesizing. The oxygencame from CO2-using blue=green algae, cyanobacteria. Oxygen is their waste product. So in a sense we're here because we can breathe cyanobacteria poop. Kinda shows you humanity's true place in the universe, doesn't it?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

My suggestion was that if the O2 has 'always been there - fixed'

Maybe that's where your thinking is off . Weve never had Free oxygen in any abundance until the "Banded Iron" formations showed up.
Weve had lots of recycled H (stoichiometrically it occupies similar concentrations in AMMONIA and METHANE and roughly half that in HYDROGEN SULFIDE) We know these gases were in abundance in th early earth. However, Oxygen needed something else to favor its free diatomic state. Let me send you some easy reading from Wikipedia.

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/proterozoic4.html

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You might want to revise your statement somewhat. Nothing has been raining down on the earth over tens of billions of years, because the earth ain't that old. In fact, the cosmos as we understand it is only somewhat more than ten billion years old--in the neighborhood of 13 to 14 billion years old.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

My work measures the progression of life and its tracks v the geologic time scale. Its a way we have to "keep score" of resources and structure. I can strongly evidence most all of the life on this planet wrt time. That's a trick you Creationists have yet to perform.

But Creationists would say, fm, that they provided the general framework of science which resulted in the logistics by which you perform all your tricks. So in a sense Creationists did perform them with you as an operative.

Didn't your President say--"You didn't do that".

You inherited wealth which you, with some guidance, couldn't go wrong with. Your hubris is distorting your logical thinking.

What's the big deal about measuring the progression of life and its tracks v the geologic time scale when the tools designed to perform the trick were placed, ready made, into your hands as was the motive for it.

You're like Nigella Lawson pretending she is the author of the gruesome meals she makes in order to show off her cellulite arrangements. Just as you pretended you made a currach with power tools, super glue and various other materials which did not exist before Creationism.

It is as if the lift attendant claims to have taken you to the 69th floor.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

and they come in at different times. lessee , 700,000,000 years times 365 days is about 2.555 X 10^11 days.

And besides delivering the water they can be presumed to have knocked the earth into the exact correct orbit so that it can support life and then ceased when things were "just so".

The moon too being adjusted so that the tides are convenient but those comets were ice-free.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

. SCience is so compartmentalized that most folks don't know what their colleagues are doing just next door.

That is true. One lot are saving all our lives and another lot are in a muck sweat about what to do with them all.

Quote:

We are doing exactly the same analyses using the Mars Rovers. There we are looking at sedimentary structures and streamways and rocks that were lid down in water.

There are other reasons for looking at sedimentary structures and streamways and rocks on Mars. Pork. Careers. TV appearances. Wowing the gumps. Having fantasies. Burning excess money which the masses cannot be allowed to squander.

None of it possible without Creationism.

You are in denial of your roots fm. Wintertime is coming. And it shows.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You obvious lack of humility, fm, cannot but diffuse into all other aspects of your life.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Everything. One cannot without determining the origin of water have a theory about the evolution of life ... the main precondition for which is water.

Can you prove you exist when you can't name the exact time that a sperm fertilized and egg? That is the nonsense you are promoting here. It is a logical fallacy of the worst sort.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

This may answer also the question of your fellow-evolutionist, why did the hydrogen not come from the '75% of the hydrogen in the universe' (without any evidences BTW that there has been that much hydrogen on that place (around the Earth) by that time (3.85 Bya)). Besides this claim that 75% of the universe is hydrogen is very frivolous.

There is a large amount of hydrogen on earth. It is just not free hydrogen. 61% of the atoms in the human body are hydrogen found in chemical compounds.Most of the earth's mass is not in the atmosphere which is the problem you seem to have.

Water like all chemical compounds can come in three forms. Atmospheres are made up of gases. Water can be found in gas form. There is nothing to say that an atmosphere can't be 20% or even 50% water under the right conditions. Your argument stems from the ridiculous concept that the earth has always had the same physical structure as it does now.

Quote:

If the hydrogen and oxygen have always been there (in the 'universe' in fixed concentrations), what has caused them to start changing

What has changed? Hydrogen and oxygen are still atoms as they were 8 billion years ago. The location of the atoms in the solar system has changed over time due to gravitational and electromagnetic forces but the atoms haven't changed.

Quote:

My suggestion was that if the O2 has 'always been there - fixed', the concentration of hydrogen should have been changing continuously - to reach at some point the ratio of 16:2 for the 'creation' of water ... there must have been some process for continuous production (or loss) of hydrogen. Helium may not be very serious ... but it must be something like that.

Why do you think that? The earth has continually lost hydrogen over the years. It's the way gravity and gases work. Lighter elements rise up in the atmosphere over time and can be lost to space. The mixing will never allow the atmosphere to stratify into bands of gases so don't even think about going there. The earth's atmosphere and the earth itself would have contained more hydrogen when it was formed. Over time hydrogen that was freed up from chemical compounds would have been lost. The earth didn't have large quantities of O2 when it formed. The oxygen was found in other chemical compounds.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

And besides delivering the water they can be presumed to have knocked the earth into the exact correct orbit so that it can support life and then ceased when things were "just so".

And somehow the pub just happened to be conveniently built right where the beer truck stopped for deliveries. It's amazing how things work like that.

1 Reply

@parados,

you've just created a new law in physics parados

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know