Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@brianjakub,

Nucleosynthesis taking place within stars has been shown to produce the elements. When iron is produced, the star dies. The evidence is determining the make up of stars, in their various stages, the are used to determine the age of a star.

This theory has yet to be invalidated, it is supported by the information that we have gained, and there is no viable alternative as to how elements are formed.

2 Replies

@kk4mds,

we can recreate the same several pathways of fusion and burning that will make elements with added protons (WHICH ARE THE ONLY WAY THAT ELEMENTS ARE ID'd).Neutrons, electrons, all the other "ons" don't really matter except to determine advancing isotopic weight of that element.

Im afraid that bj wont accept the facts and evidence s long as the intervention of an imminent God is not part of these formulae.

0 Replies

@kk4mds,

Farmer and kk4mds

Quote:

Nucleosynthesis taking place within stars has been shown to produce the elements. When iron is produced, the star dies. The evidence is determining the make up of stars, in their various stages, the are used to determine the age of a star.

This theory has yet to be invalidated, it is supported by the information that we have gained, and there is no viable alternative as to how elements are formed.

What evidence do we have that stars are producing heavy elements from fusion of lighter elements by called nucleosynthesis. The only evidence I can find is that heavier elements are present, therefore scientists are assuming that these heavy elements are being formed by nucleosynthesis. they have not observed the process of light elements like hydrogen forming heavy elements like gold or uranium through a process of multiple levels of fusion. We cannot replicate it nor observe it happening. We see heavy elements and make assumptions that they are being produced inside of large stars or super novae. Those assumptions will never be observed or proven because we cannot observe what is going on inside a star or super novae nor can we ever replicate it. We can replicate fusion to heavier atoms from lighter elements that are similar in atomic weight, that does not automatically mean that hydrogen fused to lithium and then lithium to iron and then iron to gold and uranium through a series of fusions through random processes. Assuming that happened is an act of faith without any observational evidence. Is it a leap to believe that an intelligence quantized the void of space into interacting virtual particles that we theorize is the Higgs field. And then he combined those particles into matter that interacted with the virtual particles of the Higgs field to give us the nuclear forces, gravity, and the constants(gravitational constant, plancks constant, fine structure constant and Boltzmans constant) Those forces and the corresponding constants are precisely describing a structure to all of space(the space inside atoms and the the space outside of atoms which technically and by definition are two separate universes) The observed fact that isotopes with only a certain number of neutrons are stable reveals that a very precise geometrical arrangement of particles are necessary for a large isotope to be stable. Geometric arrangement means it has to "look" a certain way or be constructed a certain way to work. I think if we use deductive reasoning to determine that geometric structure to space that pattern will unify all of the forces of physics and allow for a mathematical prediction of the constants rather than the measured on we have now?

It is easier for me to believe such complex structures happened by someone imagining it as an idea and then storing the idea in space and matter as rotating atoms, than to believe that it all happened by chance from some gravitationally induced explosion called the Big Bang. (I do believe the Big Bang happened and caused inflation, I do not believe it created matter from a random interaction of nothingness). The reason it is hard for me to believe the Big Bang created matter is, I have not observed complexity created out of disorder by chance ever. Nobody has. But we have all observed extreme complexity being created in the form of physical structures, societies, and novels by the intelligence of humans (intelligent beings storing ideas in rotating particles of matter).

I base my beliefs on observable patterns and then assume those patterns continued into the past, and will continue into the future.

What pattern are you basing your beliefs on?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

no, as an example we can see internal spectra of our own sun with its H fuel and "resiidues" of He and some Li and a bit of Be. As these are spread about the "neighborhood" and become incorporated into more star consolidation spectra, the heavier element can be produced via several named fusion and burning reaction chains.

When I posted the "pillars of Creation" these consolidating masses display spectra that show heavier and heavier elements.

Your own inquiry only stopped at the Big Bang" (your own Wiki post showed us that). spacetime extends past and beyond the BB doesnt it?

That would be a HEllo andGoodbye kinda statement who would assert that a god had to create everything at once.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

gravity needs matter to exist because it is an emergant force from the disturbance matter cause in the higgs field (space time continuum). If hydrogen and helium were created from the heat and pressure that existed in the conditions created by gravity and the initiation of the Big Bang event, where did the gravity come to cause the big bang when matter didn't exist before the big bang and a structure to matter and space is necessary for gravity, the nuclear forces and the consistant constants to emerge.

I will grant you that large atoms could be created today at the expense of an extremely large amount of matter being turned into energy in nuclear fusion over billions of years. That does not explain my previous paragraph though. Nor is there any observable evidence proving that is how all atoms were created through randomly driven processes. The distribution of large atoms in the universe and on earth seem to provide evidence that the correct ratio of elements were dispersed in certain planets and stars to create a planet that supports our life. It also appears that all stars are slowly destroying matter by turning it into energy faster than they are creating new light elements.

How do you explain the paradox of, "which came first gravity or matter created by the Big bang-stellar nuclearsynthesis proposal" for the origination of matter from nothing?

Quote:

Your own inquiry only stopped at the Big Bang" (your own Wiki post showed us that). spacetime extends past and beyond the BB doesnt it?

That would be a HEllo andGoodbye kinda statement who would assert that a god had to create everything at once.

If space time and matter existed before the Big Bang event and the Big Bang is just a transition to a more perfect universe as reluctantly suggested by Allan Guth, that creates a need for a quantum creation event that is not dependent gravity for the creation of matter. I say Alan reluctantly admitted this because he he posted in a blog once that he would spend the rest of his life proving that the quantum creation event proposition wrong (even though I think a reasonable person would conclude that the evidence suggests that it did). It is hard to find many physicists postulating an event before the big bang, and the few that are suggesting it have already decided against it mainly because of an atheistic bias in the upper echelons of physics. What do you think would happen to Alan Guth's career if he suggested scientists start looking for a evidence for quantum creation event initiated by some ancient alien intelligence, and a way to prove it emperically?

Do you believe there was a quantum creation event to establish the Higgs field before the big bang? Where do you think the order that had to be established for gravity to emerge from the space time continuum and matter came from?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

1What about the strong and weak forces??

2Is gravity even a force?

Quote:

correct ratio of elements were dispersed in certain planets and stars to create a planet that supports our life.

There is evidence that the Hadean world had nothing like our "correct ratio" of elements. Science works under an assumption (fairly well evidenced). That life happened and adapted to the planets environment, not the other way around. We have good geological evidence that life "sprang up" and then died a number of times before it "took". The evidence requires that we look at the environment through time and assess its nature via overlapping sensing methods.
You seem to be a fan of the "Goldilox hypothesis". If you have any compelling evidence please display it, youd be a nobel laureate in perhaps 3 overlapping areas. Youll be famous .

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

1What about the strong and weak forces??

2Is gravity even a force?

Quote:

In physics, a force is any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object.[1] A force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate.

By definition gravity is a force, it accelerates an object. The strong and weak forces contain the quarks and electrons in atoms. There is a structure to space that is revealed by the fact that space interacts with matter in a very specific way resulting in the fine structure constant. This interaction is now understood as the higgs mechanism . The higgs mechanism requires the higgs boson which is a particle constructing the space time continuum. These constants that reveal this structure of the higgs field that surrounds matter and contains the quarks and electrons of matter.

You call it goldilocks because the data causes us to think that way, it looks like its set up perfectly. Why deny what the data is revealing?

If life spontaneously started many times, why can't we observe it starting today? what is different now?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

gravity was always assumed to be a force in Newtonian physics , but, as reasoned via relativistic thinking it may actually be just a spatial property.

The point I was driving at youve dismissed . You stated the select conditions under which atoms can fuse or transmutate via fusion, fission, chemical means etc. "In a gravitational field".
Theres no compelling evidence that that statement is a unique fact that limits formation of elements. If its happening is space NOW, that sorta refutes your reasoning.

Quote:

You call it goldilocks because the data causes us to think that way, it looks like its set up perfectly. Why deny what the data is revealing?

I dont think the data reveals such a conclusion at all. When I can look at the many elements in the spectra of stars and galaxies of certain ages in their lives and see that these elemental chains are all over the universe, I dont accept a "goldilox hypotheses".

Quote:

If life spontaneously started many times, why can't we observe it starting today? what is different now?

Who says it isnt?? we see extremophilic life forms all over. All that evolution theory shows is that life was biologically sequential in its development over time on our planet. we dont see elephant or whale fossils in the deep Archean strata and we dont see dinosaur fossils in Neogene sediment . We see strong evidence that life tried to start up in the deep Hadean sediments from places like Greenland or Australia , Africa, and possibly two other areas. Our evidence is developed based on preferred Carbon isotopes favored by life or non-life. The ratio of C12 to C13 (stable Carbons) is unique in life, presented for our inspection in concert with the laws of chirality. "Life is uniquely left handed with high C12 in the living state ( it almost exclusively limits the amt of C13 in the living state). We see this chemistry several times in deposits that look like truncated event of life trying to take "root" but not succeeding until the "oldest Archean". The paleochem tells us that the environment at that time was reducing, methane, Ammoniacal, and carbon monoxide rich in a "water bath".
The Miller/Urey type experiments have been run bases on what the environment was really like.

If life exists out there or did exist out there, I wouldnt be dismayed or even surprised, would you?.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

We have good geological evidence that life "sprang up" and then died a number of times before it "took".

Where'd you get that?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

If life exists out there or did exist out there, I wouldnt be dismayed or even surprised, would you?.

Well, that would depend on how likely we think life would spontaneously appear here.

You probably already thought of that

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The point I was driving at youve dismissed . You stated the select conditions under which atoms can fuse or transmutate via fusion, fission, chemical means etc. "In a gravitational field".
Theres no compelling evidence that that statement is a unique fact that limits formation of elements. If its happening is space NOW, that sorta refutes your reasoning.

The point you are avoiding is that today it takes a gravitational field to provide the conditions necessary for fusion and fission to happen in stellar nucleosynthesis. If the big bang is the start of the universe and where the first matter was created, how did the gravity needed come into being to form matter when gravity requires matter to exist at all?

As I stated earlier, and would love to read your answer:

Quote:

If space time and matter existed before the Big Bang event and the Big Bang is just a transition to a more perfect universe as reluctantly suggested by Allan Guth, that creates a need for a quantum creation event that is not dependent "upon" gravity for the creation of matter. I say Alan reluctantly admitted this because he he posted in a blog once that he would spend the rest of his life proving that the quantum creation event proposition wrong (even though I think a reasonable person would conclude that the evidence suggests that it did). It is hard to find many physicists postulating an event before the big bang, and the few that are suggesting it have already decided against it mainly because of an atheistic bias in the upper echelons of physics. What do you think would happen to Alan Guth's career if he suggested scientists start looking for a evidence for quantum creation event initiated by some ancient alien intelligence, and a way to prove it emperically?

Do you believe there was a quantum creation event to establish the Higgs field before the big bang? Where do you think the order that had to be established for gravity to emerge from the space time continuum and matter came from?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Where'd you get that?

pretty much the geological literature. It might hve been the Geol Socity of Amreic bulletin or GEOLOGY, or EARTH, or some pper in Wvolution. Its really not new news.
The Isua Formation analyses of C12 C13 ratios nd life goes back at least 20 years and its an example of how falsification can be applied. as an "applied science".

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

The formation of elements can be followed by examining the age of stars in relation to the elements that make them up. The nuclei, protons, and electrons are changed in number. If that was not true then atomic power wouldn't work. You should probably read a physics book. It is the physics of the atom as its basics.

By the way, it's not a "random process", but one that is tightly determined by the laws of physics and the makeup of atoms. The change from one element to another occurs is linear. That is why hydrogen cannot form gold or uranium without there being particular intermediate steps. What exists can only be changed to one particular element. Iron, which, for the purpose of atomic evolution is inert, when formed leads to the death of the star. Also, these changes have been observed and form the basis of our knowledge of atomic and subatomic particles.

Nobody saw biblical creation, but that doesn't prevent some to believe in it.

2 Replies

@kk4mds,

How do you explain how fusion and fission caused by the pressure of gravity at the singularity of the Big Bang when it takes matter interacting with the space time continuum or Higgs field to produce gravity. There can be no gravity without matter or a Higgs field. If the Big Bang produced the first atoms where did the gravity for the Big Bang come from before matter existed.

0 Replies

@kk4mds,

Quote:

By the way, it's not a "random process", but one that is tightly determined by the laws of physics and the makeup of atoms. The change from one element to another occurs is linear. That is why hydrogen cannot form gold or uranium without there being particular intermediate steps. What exists can only be changed to one particular element. Iron, which, for the purpose of atomic evolution is inert, when formed leads to the death of the star. Also, these changes have been observed and form the basis of our knowledge of atomic and subatomic particles.

I understand all of that. Do you understand why the processes in physics are not random? Do you understand why the fine structure constant appears to be the same everywhere all the time? What is so special about the space time continuum and matter that make them interact in such a precise pattern? What is it about the higgs field that gives matter mass? If gravity is warping the space time continuum what is warping? Was it warping before the big bang? Did it exist before the big bang? Does the structure of the space time continuum have to exist before matter can be supported by the nuclear forces? Please answer those questions and let's discuss them because, those answers are required before you can talk about creating matter out of nothing.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

your question after posting the previous post of kk4... presumes that you are correct, neh?.
Why continue any further since you really dont require any further inspection or discussion. You are merely trying to underpin your religious beliefs by trying to sound scientistic".
What the hell does the Higgs field have to do with evolution?
In January Im gonna celebrate my 42 anniversary in the sciences and there is one inescapable rule rule weve learned to take to the bank.
"We can NEVER provide answers (or even ask any decent questions) in any field that has no dimensional equivalence with the one under inspection" STudy up on dimensional equivalence before you begin asking questions about higgs bosons in natural selection or even neutral theory. Hmmm?

My feeling is that you are practicing scientistic diversion merely in order to cast our eyes away from the discussions at hand.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I don't conclude I am correct but I assume that I am because I am fairly sure of it. What have I said that is incorrect or unsubstantiated by the data? I would gladly discuss anything you question that I said or how I substantiated my conclusions. You just have to ask me a specific question and to the best of my ability I will give you very specific answer with the bibliography. The reason we have an underlying order and can use dimensional analysis everywhere all the time is because the Higgs field is an entangled geometric structure We call the space time continuum. The cutting edge physicists studying quantum gravity, string theory The Higgs field and entropic gravity are already assuming that to be true. For the fine structure constant to be the same everywhere in the universe no matter where the matter is located logically requires there to be a structure to empty space otherwise why would blackbody radiation radiate in the same packets everywhere. This underlying order in the Higgs field is necessary for electromagnetic forces to be consistent and follow the patterns necessary with the Constans thar are required so that the chemistry in DNA works systematically every time. The reasons the Constants are what they are and the laws of physics exists is because there is a structure to the space inside in an Atom and there's a structure of space outside of Atoms and the only place there is uncertainty is where those two spaces come into contact in the electron field or where the electron couples with the Higgs bozon's of the Higgs field. This uncertainty disappears and the structure of the Higgs field becomes More obvious when working with Bose Einstein condensates. A. Sergi Who Researchers Bose Einstein condensates and wrote a paper called quantum biology which explains why the Higgs field is important to evolution.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Plank made it much easier to do dimensional analysis By introducing plank by introducing plank units . I am on the road right now when I get home I Will use dimensional analysis to back out Planck's constant or the fine structure constant By assuming a certain geometry was used in constructing the Higgs field.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

I didnt mention that we see nucleosynthesis almost daily in a thunder storm.
Your waay overthinking this and Im dog tired, just drove 200 mi through a damn windstorm.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Were you in Kansas? Yeah that’s what us people that believe in ID do, overthink everything and believe nothing on faith.

0 Replies

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know