20
   

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2017 12:19 pm
@brianjakub,
I said that its fairly compelling evidence. Im willing to listen other viiews.
Its called nucleosynthesis.
If we look at our own sun we can see from spectral analyses that its
"BURNING" HYDROGEN

HYDROGEN IS FUSING TO FORM HELIUM
Helium and hydrogen nuclei are fusing to form still heavier elements

0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2017 01:27 pm
@Leadfoot,
Stars do not create hydrogen and helium out of nothing. There spectrum says those heavy elements are present there is zero evidence that it is beginning created inside the stars. Very convenient place for it to be created someplace we will never be able to observe.Matter is order. Matter is Energy in order. STARZ destroy order.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2017 01:44 pm
@brianjakub,
Your discussions seem to be all over the place. First things First,, have we satisfied your inquiry regarding the derivation of heavy elements through the various types of nucleosynthesis and evidence via spectral analyses of emitted light from existing stars and novae (also supernovae with gamma ray bursts?? (a tip o the hat to Leadfoot who provided other means besides supernovae)
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2017 09:29 pm
@farmerman,
Farmer,
It seems Brian seeks to discredit established science wherever he finds it. Is that the only way to justify living his life according to a 5,000 year old world-view?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2017 11:39 am
@Helloandgoodbye,
Helloandgoodbye wrote:

Hey guys, still looking for a response to my last post regarding DNA.


funny

this was your very first post at A2k
0 Replies
 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2017 06:17 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

It's apparent that not just life but everything else had probably evolved from that enormous heaviness of nothingness, with the Big Bang.

'Apparent' only if incapable of critical thought.

Quote:
As has been observed by thinkers smarter'n me, "There seems to be a 'Plan' "

As I said, nonsense.
You are looking into the mirror and assuming a Universe with your own features...
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2017 11:58 am
@farmerman,
Sorry it took so long to reply.

Quote:
Big Bang nucleosynthesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This article or section appears to contradict itself. (March 2017)
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (March 2017)
This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. In particular, nonspecialists may have trouble understanding this article's language. (March 2017)
In physical cosmology, Big Bang nucleosynthesis (abbreviated BBN, also known as primordial nucleosynthesis, arch(a)eonucleosynthesis, archonucleosynthesis, protonucleosynthesis and pal(a)eonucleosynthesis) refers to the production of nuclei other than those of the lightest isotope of hydrogen (hydrogen-1, 1H, having a single proton as a nucleus) during the early phases of the Universe. Primordial nucleosynthesis is believed by most cosmologists to have taken place in the interval from roughly 10 seconds to 20 minutes after the Big Bang,[citation needed] and is calculated to be responsible for the formation of most of the universe's helium as the isotope helium-4 (4He), along with small amounts of the hydrogen isotope deuterium (2H or D), the helium isotope helium-3 (3He), and a very small amount of the lithium isotope lithium-7 (7Li). In addition to these stable nuclei, two unstable or radioactive isotopes were also produced: the heavy hydrogen isotope tritium (3H or T); and the beryllium isotope beryllium-7 (7Be); but these unstable isotopes later decayed into 3He and 7Li, as above.

Essentially all of the elements that are heavier than lithium were created much later, by stellar nucleosynthesis in evolving and exploding stars.


This is just a belief based on a world view with very little evidence as quoted here in wikipedia and restated here.
Quote:
Primordial nucleosynthesis is believed by most cosmologists to have taken place in the interval from roughly 10 seconds to 20 minutes after the Big Bang,[citation needed] and is calculated to be responsible for the formation of most of the universe's helium as the isotope helium-4 (4He), along with small amounts of the hydrogen isotope deuterium (2H or D), the helium isotope helium-3 (3He), and a very small amount of the lithium isotope lithium-7 (7Li)


If heavier elements are being produced in stellar nucleosynthesis, the only evidence we have it is being produced is the spectrum they emit. All tghat says is that the elements are there today not where they came from as stated in this wiki quote.

Quote:
Stellar nucleosynthesis is the process by which the natural abundances of the chemical elements within stars change due to nuclear fusion reactions in the cores and their overlying mantles. Stars are said to evolve (age) with changes in the abundances of the elements within. Core fusion increases the atomic weight of elements and reduces the number of particles, which would lead to a pressure loss except that gravitation leads to contraction, an increase of temperature, and a balance of forces.[1] A star loses most of its mass when it is ejected late in the star's lifetime, thereby increasing the abundance of elements heavier than helium in the interstellar medium. The term supernova nucleosynthesis is used to describe the creation of elements during the evolution and explosion of a pre-supernova star, a concept put forth by Fred Hoyle in 1954.[2] Of the several processes of nucleosynthesis, stellar nucleosynthesis is the dominating contributor to elemental abundances in the universe.

A stimulus to the development of the theory of nucleosynthesis was the discovery of variations in the abundances of elements found in the universe. Those abundances, when plotted on a graph as a function of atomic number of the element, have a jagged sawtooth shape that varies by factors of tens of millions. This suggested a natural process that is not random. Such a graph of the abundances can be seen at History of nucleosynthesis theory article. A second stimulus to understanding the processes of stellar nucleosynthesis occurred during the 20th century, when it was realized that the energy released from nuclear fusion reactions accounted for the longevity of the Sun as a source of heat and light.[3] The fusion of nuclei in a star, starting from its initial hydrogen and helium abundance, provides it energy and the synthesis of new nuclei is a byproduct of that fusion process. This became clear during the decade prior to World War II. The fusion-produced nuclei are restricted to those only slightly heavier than the fusing nuclei; thus they do not contribute heavily to the natural abundances of the elements. Nonetheless, this insight raised the plausibility of explaining all of the natural abundances of elements in this way. The prime energy producer in our Sun is the fusion of hydrogen to form helium, which occurs at a solar-core temperature of 14 million Kelvin.

Yes it raised the plausibility from who knows to maybe but highly ujnlikely, because there is too many particles arranged in exactly the correct way to make a heavy atom.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2017 05:13 pm
@brianjakub,
That article is really weird. It fails to even recognize the various types of fusion and fission , as well as which stars and novae and even brown dwarfs are responsible for which heavier elements in the periodic table.

"Big Bang nucleosynthesis " only takes care of maybe a few hundred thousand yeqrs in time after the inflation.
We have entire energy spectra and quantitative measures of heavy elements based on cllasses of stars in which these spectra occur . Somewhere Id seen a TED talk where a group cosmologists presented best evidence from what elements seem to derive from these various starclasses. Stars dont go from Helium to iron in one jump it occurs most often in stages and within stars where the "stardust" from earlier fusion reactions occured. Ill see If I cant find the "Spectral priodic table"
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2017 07:00 pm
@farmerman,
PS Big Bang nucleosynthesis only takes into account H,He and Li. Why did you wish to stop there?? The universe is ppretty old (or do you deny the ages as evidenced?)
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2017 05:41 am
Just had to add my observation on how unlikely a basic star is. This is just an aspect of the design argument but it still blows my mind whenever I learn a new detail.

The Big Bang itself is in-solvable with our current knowledge base but ignoring that, the formation of quarks and then Hydrogen from it is almost conceivable unless you start looking close. But a ******* spontaneous stable self-sustaining fusion process that lasts for billions of years really is mind blowing.

You might naturally think that a giga-ton thermonuclear bomb going off in the middle of a Hydrogen gas cloud would immediately either scatter it to hell & back or else light the entire mass off at once in a reaction lasting microseconds. Never mind the big bang, universe, quantum phenomenon, etc. - just a simple star requires so many finely balanced forces and other factors that it alone stretches credibility to the breaking point.

Yeah, I get the idea that there could potentially be an infinite number of universes where fusion temperature, gravity, atomic forces, speed of light etc. are all different and H just clumps together in inert masses but the same is true about unicorns and teacups orbiting Uranus. Why would I believe that?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2017 06:17 am
@Leadfoot,
so you dont accept that all the He and Li that is piling up in the Sun is being formed as a result of a thermo nuclear reaction.? or are you just saying that all this nucleosynthesis just further proves to you that a hief designer was in charge.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2017 07:25 am
@farmerman,
Sure I do. And all the other elements too. Which is equally ingenious or magic or lucky depending on POV.

Another amazing thing is the variety and concentration of elements on this planet. Since planets are all made of exploded star stuff randomly collecting due to gravity, I'd expect a more homogenized mixture than what we see. Think about how difficult it would have been (for technological progress) if it was. But what we got was this very handy distribution of concentrated deposits to make it easy for us. And then there was the complicated process of making the stuff I love and that they pay you to find. F'n amazing!

Yeah, I gotta go with the designer
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2017 07:28 am
@Leadfoot,
Gravity pulls mass together, enough mass causes pressure, pressure causes heat, and enough heat ignites things, like stars. And enough gravity holds them together as they burn. Not complicated at all. And as we can see from looking at the night sky, not uncommon either.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2017 07:53 am
@rosborne979,
Yeah, and all I do is push a button on this little box thing and billions of people can talk to each other on them. It's so simple!
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2017 10:59 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
Yeah, and all I do is push a button on this little box thing and billions of people can talk to each other on them. It's so simple!
I don't understand the point you are trying to make with this comment.

Are you trying to say that because human's had to build computer networks that therefor something had to build stars, even when we already understand how stars evolve within known physics? That makes no sense. And I think you're smarter than that, so I must be missing your point.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2017 01:15 pm
@rosborne979,
I was implying oversimplification. I mentioned along the way that there are an enormous number of factors (cosmological constants, speed of light, atomic forces, etc. that had to be right for fusion in free space to happen spontaneously.

As well respected physicists have said, there is no reason we know of for any of them to have the values we see in this universe. Hydrogen fusion could be an endothermic process if things were only slightly different, gravity could be a repulsive force instead of attractive, etc.
AngleWyrm-paused
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2017 02:08 pm
The argument this universe is perfectly suited to produce us doesn't work; we are the product of the universe in which we live.

So it is with the fish, the earthworm and the giraffe.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2017 04:58 pm
@AngleWyrm-paused,
Yep, just like the climate on Jupiter is perfectly suited for Jovians.

Oh wait...
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2017 05:24 pm
@Leadfoot,
The argument of "perfect conditions" is specious. We've dealt with it many times before and I don't want to waste my time on it again. I just wanted to understand your point, and now I do.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2017 05:34 pm
@rosborne979,
The lessons we see from all the EXTINCTIONs of life forms throughout earth's time in the Milky Way should give one pause as to whether the earth was really so "tuned" for life or was life scrambling to keep up in all these changing environments.

Recall seeing Raup's calculation that, of all of the over 5 Billion species that ever lived on the planet, 99.9999% became extinct.
Hmm, the designer must have been using Windows Millennium.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 03:14:48