Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 3634
view profile
History
Creation vs EvolutionPage 153 of 156    (116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156)
Beyond the fact that evolutionary science (many many disciplines support one another) and creationism is "opposed" diametrically the main problem I have with "creationism" being taught in public schools, is that they are PUBLIC schools. Creationism, by definition, is a christian concept.. and is not shared by every family that uses public schooling. The fact that those who do use public schooling are not the top percetage of the wealthy elite also makes public schooling a "captive audience". No religion has the right to infringe on "government" institutions, or define it's policy... at least not in countries which have freedom of religion as part of their charter. Canada is one country who does...does not the Constitution of the US also protect this basic right? There would be no legal way to introduce "creationism" into the public school system without amending this right... unless the Constitution is more of a "guideline" than a guarded principle of American society. Unless creationism can show, as well as science does, or better I might add, that the theory is valid, testable and supported by ALL THE OTHER things we know, it does not belong in the public school system. It could be taught at the University level in the theology or philosophy departments. I highly doubt any science doctorate with tenure in an accredited educational institution would teach this as part of the science department...or would be allowed to.

Christians are welcome to educate their children as they see fit, as long as they can pass certain academic standards set by the country or state, or province. But to expect PUBLIC funds to support that is unconscienable and against the basic tenets of western society. I would not allow my child to attend such a school.. and I would refuse to pay taxes for it also. AND I would be causing a serious ruckus with my representatives.... all the way up the the Supreme Court. I'm not remotely the only person who feels this way.

It also points to christianity as a meme.

Just another facet of this
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3636
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 1:31:14 PM
FrogO_Oeyes appears to be attempting to cajole me into giving away hours of programming work for free to who knows how many users. My friend counseled me that I should be very indignant about this. He would be.

FrogO_Oeyes wrote: “This conclusion is wrong. Decay rate IS constant. It's measured in half-lives, which means a greater total amount is lost early than late. It decays into known elements, and the proportions of those known elements to one another allows elapsed time to be determined. The problem with this creationist argument is that nuclear reactors are assumed to depend on natural decay of uranium. They do not. Enriched [which is only 3% to 5% concentration U235 is bombarded with neutrons, which forcibly converts it to U236. The U236 decays MUCH faster, releasing much more energy than was used to start the fission reaction. I suspect that whoever wrote that little "factoid" about decay rates knew the truth, but deliberately obscured it in order to further the creationist agenda. Nuclear reactors need fresh fuel because they do not use the natural decay of U235 - they destroy it.”

U236 apparently has such a short half life that it is not even mentioned in my college text on the subject. The impact of a neutron on the nucleus results in the fission of the U235 atom into commonly Sr90 and Xe143 plus 3 neutrons. One of these neutrons, with the help of a moderator, triggers another U235 atom to fission while the other two escape the fuel mass.
What the College text leaves out is the extreme volume increase this results in. 1cc of U235 typically results in over 1900cc of byproducts. Fortunately the greater volume is the gas Xenon which is Nobel and vented to the atmosphere after the heat energy is used to produce electricity or destruction depending on wheter we are talking about generators or bombs.

I publish the following program on this site without warrenty or promises of any sort. It is merely presented as proof of the gravity mathematics which is used by NASA to “slingshot” Sattelites into faster velocities. The main principle was originally published by Sir Isaac Newton. I lay no clame to being the originator of the mathematics involved, I merely present them because readers of this forum have asked for it. Use of this program constitutes agreement that This site and the author shall be held guiltless of any dammage which may occur any time or any place now or in the future. It is presented primarily as an expression of the real world mathematical concepts. If the readers use it for any other purpose, The user assumes full responsibility for the consequences. No maintenance or other support of this program is offered or provided. No help file or other documentation will be provided. The claim has been made that the reader is familiar with the language in which it is written and able to understand it.

10 SCREEN 2:CLS:DEFDBL A-Z:LN=1:PI=3.14159265359#:C=180/PI:P2=2*PI
15 DQ=80:DIM X(DQ),Y(DQ):Z=2:MI=5280
20 PRINT,"MOON ORBIT"
30 X=1260295291#:Y=0:TH=PI/2:P=2360592#:V=2*PI*X/P:T=36000!
40 PRINT X/MI;:INPUT "X";A$:IF A$ "" THEN X=MI*VAL(A$)
50 PRINT Y/MI;:INPUT "Y";A$:IF A$ "" THEN Y=MI*VAL(A$)
60 PRINT TH*C;:INPUT "é";A$:IF A$ "" THEN TH=VAL(A$)/C
70 PRINT V;:INPUT "V";A$:IF A$ "" THEN V=VAL(A$)
80 PRINT T;:INPUT "T";A$:IF A$ "" THEN T=VAL(A$)
85 PRINT " S=1";:INPUT S:IF S=0 THEN S=1
90 R=SQR(X*X+Y*Y):H=1.5*R:VV=.8*H:WINDOW (-H*S,-VV*S)-(H*S,VV*S)
100 VIEW (320,199)-(639,0):R1=MI*3963:GOSUB 500
110 T2=T*T:D=PI/P*T
120 TH=TH+D:K=D:L=0:G=-1.408851115D+16*1.331065111# :C=1'.9999900017706253#
130 F=.5*T2*G/(R*R):E=F/2:X(Q)=X:Y(Q)=Y:W=V:A=2*D:B=R
135 J=Q:Q=Q+1:IF Q>DQ THEN Q=0
140 M=T*V*COS(TH):N=T*V*SIN(TH):X(Q)=X(J)+M+E*COS(K):Y(Q)=Y(J)+N+E*SIN(K)
150 LINE(X(J),Y(J))-(X(Q),Y(Q)):M=M+F*COS(K):N=N+F*SIN(K)
152 J=Q:Q=Q+1:IF Q>DQ THEN Q=0
154 U=Z:Z=Z+1:IF Z>DQ THEN Z=0
156 LINE(X(U),Y(U))-(X(Z),Y(Z)),0
160 V=SQR(M*M+N*N)/T*C:TP=TH:IF M=0 THEN M=-1E-38)
170 TH=ATN(N/M):IF M 1 THEN TP=TP+P2:GOTO 190
210 IF TD 1 THEN L=L+P2:GOTO 250
270 IF D<-1 THEN L=L-P2:GOTO 250
280 L=K:K=K+D:TH=TH+TD:B=SQR(X(J)*X(J)+Y(J)*Y(J)):C=1-1/(B*B)
290 GOTO 140
500 CY1=0:CX1=R1
510 WHILE I<3.15
520 CY=R1*SIN(I):CX=R1*COS(I)
530 LINE(CX,CY)-(CX1,CY1)
540 LINE(-CX,CY)-(-CX1,CY1)
550 LINE(-CX,-CY)-(-CX1,-CY1)
560 LINE(CX,-CY)-(CX1,-CY1):CX1=CX:CY1=CY
570 I=I+PI/20:WEND
580 RETURN


Have fun.
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 3638
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 2:07:52 PM
Not bashing at all (and anything I say about "christianity" I also would say about any other religion which holds exclusivity of truth as a tenet)

Just an observation and an interesting idea I came across lately. I apologize if it came across that way. I respect your posts, even if I don't agree all the time... even when they suggest that non-christians are patently wrong.

I do not believe my posts are intolerant... just a different viewpoint. Now, if I said something like, "you christians are all a bunch of ignorant and deluded redneck fools to even suggest that creationism can possibly be true, you are all intentionally trying to spread the meme of christianity" THAT would be intolerant, disrespectful and literally "bashing".

I haven't made any accusations... nor am I being intolerant. I am just tossing ideas around. Well.. I AM intolerant of creationism (which is weird really since I have no issue with ID) because I have yet to see any real factual basis for it. It is fantasy...to me, subjected to all the science I know of that refutes it... and I find it insulting for some people to try to use science to refute something that it overwhelmingly supports. Being scientifically minded I am always interested in new data... and will adjust my beliefs accordingly, yet I have not seen yet ONE hypothesis nor workable theory that supports creationism...especially young earth creationism. When information that is verifiable comes to light I will look at it... and consider it and watch how it is modeled and tested and cross-tested by the scientific community.... it's like forensics.. I love this line, Grissom on CSI, "We follow the evidence, nothing more, where it leads us are the facts... we do not theorize the outcome..just follow the evidence, that's where the truth is". Beautiful.

The only reason I can see for any religion to insist on teaching their philosophy in a public forum is to spread their philosophy.. when it concerns impressionable children in a publicly funded place where they are a captive audience... I have to wonder at the motive. It's a legitimate concern. If it was communism, or Islam, or Judaism or other philosophy.. even anarchism... I'd be as concerned, unless it was taught as a "history" subject.. or a philosophy subject in higher grades... maybe.. just maybe... some forms of religion have grown into something that has a life of its own...sociologically. I would never think that the average religious person would actually think this way.. that's silly.

I am strongly opposed to creationism being taught in our public schools.. it is an infringement of MY right to religious freedom, and my right to educate my child as I see fit. Religion does not belong in public school...period. You want to send your children to a christian school and be taught whatever...be my guest, I'm not paying for it, nor supporting it.

I wouldn't propose to teach magick to someone else's child.. and certainly NOT in a public school. That would be disrespectful.

Peace
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 3639
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 3:28:15 PM

FrogO_Oeyes appears to be attempting to cajole me into giving away hours of programming work for free to who knows how many users

Actually, I was counselling you to present evidence you claimed to have. I don't consider it to be much value regardless, since you made it clear that it doesn't reflect reality. Unfortunately, you made good, and now I have to look at the damn thing!
I agree with the comments on rem statements and the like. However, you weren't intending to present this to others, so fine. I'll begin looking at it from home, though I won't guarantee any speed. You COULD have your post edited or deleted, and just email us the code. That would limit public exposure while providing nominate independant review. My email has no restrictions. Hm...actually...I have to wonder how relevant a program, designed for calculating slingshots, is for calculating stable orbits. After all, this program assumes your intent is to NOT establish orbit.

Nonetheless, I thank you for providing it.


U236 apparently has such a short half life that it is not even mentioned in my college text on the subject

I noticed that as well, but didn't dig further. It doesn't affect anything here, since what matters is that U235 is destroyed in a fission reaction, and natural radiation is not the power source.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3640
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 6:25:07 PM
I hope you guys got your copy before someone tampered with it. I see now that the copy on the forum is missing a couple of lines. That will definately generate a goto error. I just checked the original and it still runs on my computer and the lines are there. Obviously somebody doesn't want this truth known.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3642
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 4:27:17 PM
Bright1Raziel

I am making the assertion that the debris from supernovae must be intelligently bound back into planetary masses which must then additionally be decellerated and inserted into stellar orbits in order for the stars to be visible rather than obscured by debris from innumerable stellar explosions.

Modern astronomers have begun to accept that in order for these rocks we live on to have the heavier elements the Sun would have had to have once been a supernova or part of one. The absence of evidence of such heavier elements in the solar spectra is evidence that this is not the case. The alternative is planetary insertion. The rotational velocity required for debris to remain in orbit after such a local supernova is yet another factor refuting the accidental acretion into planets.

Yet another new evidence is the discovery of huge planets in the inner orbital positions of nearby stars. This also refutes the validity of the acretion disc theory.

The orbital plane of the Solar System provides yet another evidence of intelligent creation.

I wish the responders would resist the temptation to add the suffix ism to creation. It is not the established ism of creation that this thread is about as I read the OP. It is Creation evidence which is being sought. Most of that evidence cannot help but be the same evidence being used to support evolution. We are after all talking about the same universe. What we have is new observations which refute old theories and when the new observations are taken into account the old theories must be revised or discarded. Not everybody is keeping up with the new observations. We have put satelites in orbit brothers and sisters. Some of us are not ignorant of this fact. The process of doing it requires Rocket Science. Rocket Science is much more logical than Religious Dogma. It works in the logic circuits of computers. We may have all started out with well wired brains with strong instincts but many of us have cross wired and neutralized a lot of those instincts. Some with positive results like being able to handle flying and fire. While others have negative results like belief in a God that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time and believing that these little rocks we live on could have happened by accident.

The meat that has been requested is the same meat being consumed by evolution proponants. It merely requires taking in the additional evidence and disgarding the false disproved notions of the past regarding it to be a creation proponent. We don't have to prove who or what the intelligence is to perceive the evidence of the works of that intelligence. We merely have to progress to the point of doing some of the things done by intelligence to see that most of the things we do observe are the result of intelligent intervention.

If the debris from observed supernovae is moving as fast as we can see that it is, and calculate that it must be in order to be there at all, then the observed phenomena do match the mathematical models and vice versa.

If you can quit saying in your mind : don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up. Then you might be able to perceive the facts which refute the old interpretations of the data. Quit holding on to obsolete science and get into Rocket Science. If you can't beat the nerds, you ought to try becoming one.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 3643
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 5:31:06 PM

I am making the assertion that the debris from supernovae must be intelligently bound back into planetary masses...

um..isn't it gravity that does that?

The absence of evidence of such heavier elements in the solar spectra is evidence that this is not the case

AHA! The old "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" argument - we meet again. If you don't have evidence of something it doesn't mean it can't be true, nor does it prove an alternative proposition.

You haven't shown us anything that could not have happened naturally.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 3646
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 6:57:23 PM

I am making the assertion that the debris from supernovae must be intelligently bound back into planetary masses which must then additionally be decellerated and inserted into stellar orbits in order for the stars to be visible rather than obscured by debris from innumerable stellar explosions

I can't see why you would make this assertion. It's not in accordance with astronomical models which work. Gravity is what cause the matter form into stars and the matter around them, as I already spelled out. The decelleration is just acceleration due to gravity. Stars would not be obscured by debris from stellar explosions [usually] because there've been about 14 billion years for numerous stars to form, collapse, explode, reform. The debris has had time to condense [due to gravity] and form new star systems.

Modern astronomers have begun to accept that in order for these rocks we live on to have the heavier elements the Sun would have had to have once been a supernova or part of one. The absence of evidence of such heavier elements in the solar spectra is evidence that this is not the case.

Not so. Again, I already elaborated on this. The heavier elements of our planet may be debris from novae past, but our sun is not. Non sequitur fallacy. It does not follow that because the planets contain heavier elements, so must the sun. That would apply to an old sun, which ours is not. The matter which condensed into the planets may be old, but the planets and the sun they orbit are not. A young sun formed of condensed hydrogen, and young planets formed of the heavier debris.

The rotational velocity required for debris to remain in orbit after such a local supernova is yet another factor refuting the accidental acretion into planets

Again, you are assuming solar systems, principly our own, form around an ancient star which has gone supernova. That's not the usual model, and it's obviously not a model which applies to our system. It is therefore fallacious to refute a model which was never used in the first place. Strawman. A supernova may create a new system around it, but this seems unlikley. Prior to a supernove, much of a solar system may be destroyed by solar expansion. Most of the rest will be annihilated by the nova. Anything which remains will be focused on a heavier and heavier star, including quasars, pulsars, neutron stars, and black holes. The debris ejected is likely to be captered by nearby star systems or will become part of a nebula which form entirely new stars and planets. This process is observable in various nebulae, which may contain an older, heavier nova remnant, as well as younger stars forming within the clouds of gas and dust. You seem to be advocating [and then refuting] a model entirely of your own making.

This also refutes the validity of the acretion disc theory

What it means is that the theory, as applied didn't properly account for all factors. That doesn't invalidate the theory, it only invalidates the method in which it was applied. Science is a quest for understanding. When an explanation fails to work for the first time, it makes more sense to investigate the cause of the exception, not throw out the 99% success.

The orbital plane of the Solar System provides yet another evidence of intelligent creation

Apart from the logical fallacy, there are actually rational explanations. In fact, there are two related ones: our solar system is not a natural part of the Milky Way, but part of another galaxy which merged with the Milky Way. That means the orbital plane will be influenced by the angle and age of merger, and by our orbital position within the original galaxy. There are many other more trivial influences, but this one stands out.

It is not the established ism of creation that this thread is about as I read the OP. It is Creation evidence which is being sought.

Sorry, but it can't be avoided. This is a critical semantic issue which is a by-product of a creationism fallacy. Evolution has nothing to do with "creation". The two or only equated by "creationism", because young Earth creationism defines the origin of species and the origin of life as one and the same. Old Earth creationism doesn't necessarily have a problem with evolution, and would thus have nothing to do with "Evolution vs. Creation". In order for it to be "Evolution vs", creationism MUST be the issue. The notion that species were created, not evolved, is creationism by definition.

and believing that these little rocks we live on could have happened by accident.

Whatever the "odds" may be, they don't even matter. We can only observe a positive outcome, and therefore cannot determine the odds with any reliability. If your coin is transparent when viewed from tails, then no matter how many times you flip it, you will only see "heads".

We don't have to prove who or what the intelligence is to perceive the evidence of the works of that intelligence.

Not true. The logical mathematical laws which describe the functioning of the universe could just as easily be considered "intelligence". Actually, they're better than intelligence - they're actually predictable and reliable. Since that puts intelligence into the class of data which cannot be predicted or decribed; it is now, by definition, "absence of evidence". Go figure. God of the Gaps.

If you can't beat the nerds, you ought to try becoming one.

Herbert!
Herbert!
Herbert!
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 3647
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 8:16:59 PM
I seem to see the basic arguement being based upon the assumption that if evolution (not abiogenesis..evolution) can be disproved that creationism is "proved". This is a false premise, and really bad logic.

But the two are not polar opposites. Evolution, by definition, does not concern itself with the "spark" of life.. it is only concerned with the changes in the biology of life, under pressure from the environment, to adapt itself in ways that support that life and to decline that which is inimicable to survival. It has been shown by the evolutionary records that this process ultimately results in orgnaisms which are uniquely suited to their environments...and it also supports diversity to fill the niches in nature where life can exist.. life begets life...the more "life" in an area...the more life, because life is a cycle that feeds and nurtures itself. Take the extreme examples of desert life as opposed to rainforest life, there are more "niches" created by the life cycle in the rainforest than in the deep desert, hence you will find more life, that is divergent than you will in the desert, but many of these life forms will be closely related because they don't need to specialize as much as they would in a more hostile environment. In the desert, you won't find as rich a variety and number of lifeforms, but they will be more specialized... because evolution supports that which makes life possible according to environmental pressures.

But Evolution does not claim to answer the ORIGIN of life itself.

There are other hypotheses that attempt to do so... none so far has been "granted" the position of a workable theory.
That I know of.

We come to the definitions of "intelligence" and "consciousness" when we begin to delve into these things. Intelligence is a tribute of consciousness, or sentience, as far as we know and define it. Since we are sentient beings with "intelligence" it is fair to speculate from a psychological point of view that we would attribute patterns of order by our own experience of sentience. This is the bias of being what we are... everything is coloured by how we perceive our own existance. Life itself, as a process, is still a mystery, but we are making headway, and there are many diciplines who are looking for the answer. Mathematical probability and the "order" in the universe may SEEM to be too beautiful to have happened by itself, but it's all a reaction to the basic laws which rule the universe as we know it. I have no real science background yet I find some of the even more technical aspects not that difficult to understand. Just for matter to act, as it does, required the 4 forces... electromagneticism, the weak and strong nuclear forces and the most mysterious of all... gravity.

We do not know where the original material of the universe originated... or as I like like to say we don't know when or how the original energy was converted into hydrogen (the simplest and most abundant element we know of) but all the first stars began as hydrogen clouds coalescing under the 4 forces.. and finally under extreme pressure igniting in nuclear reaction. The larger stars, under their immense gravity and reactions converted the hydrogen to helium... and as they became older the helium was converted to the next element...and on down the line to the denser elements... when these stars begin to die they expand, then contract rapidly.. and finally they either explode into a nova, or if large enough into a supernova... which spews out immense amounts of new converted elements into the universe... it may become a white dwarf, a neutron star..the nebulae are a testament to these incredible explosions... or I think in the case of pulsars.. join with other huge stars or star clusters. Yet this left over material is grabbed by the nearest gravitional force and incorporated into that "system"... and then the process begins anew.. as soon as there is enough mass in the newly formed "element" clusters..stars again are born. I wonder what occurs when the massive stars at the center of a galaxy supernova? I would think that the sheer energy would cause the heavier elements to escape the event horizon of the black hole suspected at the heart of every galaxy.


Sol is a yellow-orange, main sequence dwarf star (G2 V -- see spectrum). Born in our Milky Way galaxy's disk about 4.6 billion years ago, it may shine as a normal "dwarf" star for another five billion years. It is relatively rich in elements heavier than hydrogen created by primordial supernovas, and so is called a high metallicity, "Population I" star. Even so, Sol is composed of mostly hydrogen and helium (75 percent and 25 percent by mass, or 92.1 percent and 7.8 percent by the number of atoms, respectively). All other elements amount to only about one tenth of a percent, but this is changing slowly over time as Sol converts more hydrogen to helium then to traces of other elements at its core.


This is how all the elements are created....stars are element factories.. and I think at the beginning of the universe as we know it, the concentration of matter was much higher than it is now... these processes would have occurred more rapidly, in cosmic time. As the stars and galaxies moved away from each other the "forces" between them become weaker...

"life" itself.. is still one of the great mysteries.... but that does not invalidate evolution.

It can easily be argued that the physical laws of the universe could have been created by an intelligence or sentient being, but it would just be an hypothesis, there is no way to test that hypothesis under the scrutiny of scientific method, as I can see, not within physical science... I don't think mainstream physical science CAN answer that. Now...Quantum physics might, but not yet. The quantum world is as mysterious as life itself.

Sheesh, we have still to really understand why one thing is "alive" and another isn't... take the virus.. and the bacteria, both can create respiratory illness, and even feel similar to us in our bodies attempts to "oust" the intruder (certain specific strains) both replicate, yet one is "alive" a "being" if you will, and one is not.

Regardless... evolution does not refute nor support the existence of any sentient, or even non-sentient life (or even "creator"). It is not "proof" that there is no god, it is not "proof" that there is one either... it is only an explanation of the way things are observed to work within biology, here on planet earth, and in the universe we have seen so far.

peace
 themadfiddler
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 3648
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 11:20:42 PM


Herbert!
Herbert!
Herbert!


Bwahaha! Far out, brother! We reach...he is Herbert!
*strums funky rhythms on Vulcan lyre*

"Headin' out....to Edennnnnn...."
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3649
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/19/2007 4:04:57 AM
Well, rockondon, CharlesEdm, Feral and others who are on the side of evolution,
Allow me to simplify the evidence given by the program if it had posted correctly.
I assure you that the source is still complete. Besides, I could recreate the program
if needed as it is quite brief. I believe that to truly understand the principles
one must do the math for oneself. This means writing your own program
and spending time debugging it.

It would be easier if I could include drawings or pictures.

It would be fun if someone would email me the info on how to insert those pretty lighter
background quote boxes too.

*----------------.----------------.

In the above drawing: On the left we have a piece of debris from a supernova.
On the right a Gravity object with space distance on either side equally spaced
representing the range of gravity of the central object.
The range of gravity for any object may be defined as:
The distance from the balance or null gravity point between two objects
to either object.
The slingshot effect in laman's terms describes the FACT that the amount of time
required for the Acceleration to affect the piece of debris is longer than the
amount of time available in the second space for deceleration to occur on the
same object over the same distance. When relative initial velocity is already
in excess of the required escape velocity.

There are more variables to consider but in a nutshell that is how it works.


It would be more appropriate to represent the path of the debris as a curve.
Think of it as a curve looked on edgewise coming out of the screen on one side
and into the screen on the other.

The net result of this newly observed and aptly applied principle is that anything
coming from outside the effective gravitational field of a star or planet
will leave with a net increase in relative velocity.

In other words, no retro rocket fire no orbital insertion.
Collisions do happen and do alter the velocity of both objects. However,
since both objects are in independant relative motion the center of the gravitational
effect is different from the actual location of the target object. This principle makes
for a lot more misses than hits. Thankfully because hits are quite life and peace
destructive. Think of it is being pulled like a ball on a string by your hand.
Your hand moves and so the ball follows where the hand was rather than where it is.

Science was organized to refute what many percieved as flaws in Religious dogma.
Science, being a creation of man, is subject to the same corrupting influences as Religion.
Science was a word which has been adopted into the English language. Its original
meaning was Truth. When religious dogma is refuted by observed phenomena it must be
discarded just as Scientific theories must be discarded or revised
when new observations are perceived. Unfortunately not everyone is willing or able to
give up false doctrine. For those of Galileo's time, It was their livelyhood at stake.

We must accept as proof of creation the same observed facts that support evolution.
We must simply see them more completely, more accurately.
We must be willing to see them in pure mathematical terms. If the math and the phenomena
do not match, one or the other must be revised.
Most of us have difficulty revising the observed phenomena.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 3651
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/19/2007 9:04:39 AM

bsofa: I believe that to truly understand the principles
one must do the math for oneself. This means writing your own program
and spending time debugging it.

We could write the program but we are fallible, our programs would be as well, we couldn't account for every variable, we really don't know precisely what velocities and mass we had during the big bang, it would be fraught with errors. And when we find errors in our program, it would be silly to assume that we are right (its not like we have achieved godhood, although in the case of frogo, charles, feral, a few others, I think they came close!) and the universe is wrong, we would realise that its errors in the program.

Incidentally, for your campaign against evolution I've compiled a list of what the evolution says about the big bang:
nothing
nothing
nothing.....

bsofa: It would be fun if someone would email me the info on how to insert those pretty lighter background quote boxes too.

you type: [ quote] insert text here [ /quote]

bsofa: We must accept as proof of creation the same observed facts that support evolution.

WHAT FACTS!?!?!? I've seen nothing that cannot be explained by natural phenomena. The human body is EXTREMELY complex but this complexity is what one expects after billions of years of evolution. I've heard some say the universe is unusually organized and perfect, yet there are explosions and collisions occuring constantly. What do you see in the world that cannot be explained by something other than a designer? Simple forces are always resulting in complex phenomena.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3652
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/19/2007 4:25:26 PM

WHAT FACTS!?!?!? I've seen nothing that cannot be explained by natural phenomena. The human body is EXTREMELY complex but this complexity is what one expects after billions of years of evolution. I've heard some say the universe is unusually organized and perfect, yet there are explosions and collisions occurring constantly. What do you see in the world that cannot be explained by something other than a designer? Simple forces are always resulting in complex phenomena.


Apparently you have not been reading what I’ve been writing. It is unfair of you to ask for facts outside those already observed. What I've been telling you is your explanations are no longer valid. The Facts are what they have always been. It is your personal natural explanations which are faulty. You are living in the 18th century and we are now in the 21st century. The biggest fact is that planetary coalescence in a cloud of debris is an old full of holes idea. Because I point out the absence of something, you pooh pooh the logic. The Facts are that the planets all have significantly different chemical makeup. This does not make logical sense if they all came from the same supernova debris. The system should have been more homogenous. The fact that the Earth, Mars, Mercury, and Venus are Rocky and the outer planets were Gas giants, used to be expected to be the way we should find other planetary systems. Then we find a super Jupiter in orbit around a nearby star where a Mercury like planet should be. The theory fell apart. It no longer can be accepted. You are acting like the old religious leaders of Galileo's time. You are insisting that the earth is the center of the universe when moons can be observed to go around other planets. You are rejecting the facts because if someone were to convince you that an intelligent director (ID) were involved then said intelligent director would have some right to say how his planets should be used. You would be morally obligated to behave in a manner he has specified. You obviously don't want to be obligated to anyone so you reject the obvious just as the old church leaders rejected the truth because they were in a power and control position. Their job was on the line. If they were believed to be wrong, then everything else they taught could be brought into question.

You need to watch the Discovery channel and the History channel a bit more and a little less Spike and MTV. In order for the elements beyond Iron 26 in the periodic table to be here, they had to not only have been produced in the cataclysmic explosion of a star, but blown out from that star's gravity well with sufficient velocity to escape that gravity well. If they came from a super nova of our own sun, then our sun is not in its proper place in the chart of star lives. The rotational velocity of our sun is way too slow to have spun out planets with sufficient orbital velocity to remain in orbit.

Gravity can only hold fusion reactions together up to Iron. In every place where fission is going on, there is also a little fusion going on. Breeder reactors are the most obvious evidence of this. U238 is becoming U239 which gives up an electron from the nucleus changing its atomic number from 92 to 93. Uranium becomes Neptunium. But that doesn't stop there because another electron is soon emitted decreasing the negative charge in the nucleus another notch to up the atomic number to 94 Plutonium. How can we know this if the elements are not here? How can you explain it in your natural way? This is ID Intelligent Directed creation. We are doing. It used to be said that it didn't happen in the natural world, but then they found Plutonium in the ground in Africa. Oh Oh, we have natural atomic reactors functioning on the earth? Now we have a much bigger problem. As I explained previously, When 1 CC of U235 is completely fissioned to its most common fission byproducts, these byproduct need more elbow room. They want to spread out to fill 1900+cc of space. That is a humongous explosive force. It is a force in the neighborhood of sending debris outward at velocities of 0.3c or 1/3 the velocity of light. Well above the required escape velocity for a large star. In fact it is so far above escape velocity that the residual velocity of the debris is reported to be in the millions (plural) of miles per hour range. There is nothing out there to slow it down once it gets past the limits of the gravity well of its origin.

Fission going under our feet has a similar consequence. It produces volcanic eruptions. These volcanic eruptions may serve as thrusters to keep a planet in a stable orbit. Or they could be used in bigger size to decelerate a planet and park it in a nice stable orbit. But that would leave a huge hole or hollow space behind. Well, I'll leave it there as If I write too long a post it won't be read and you apparently are not absorbing what I've been writing anyway.

Bright1Raziel
Good stuff. Now go take a look at the published velocities of the supernova debris.

Yes, the range of possibilites is very large. Perhaps infinite. What I am talking about is the recently observed phenomena.

No the old model did not predict gas giants in the close orbital position.

The biblical account was written in extreme brevaty for the sake of newly freed uneducated slaves whose attention span was too short to take in the whole thing. I'm a fan of the restored gospel through Joseph Smith Jr. the Prophet. At the risk of decreasing my own credibility even more, I am no longer a member of the main stream LDS church but still attend services regularly. The published doctrine differs from what the general membership believs because many have only recently been converted mostly from the catholic or protestant faiths. They tend to let go of the old doctrine slowly.
By the way, Whose interpretation of the Biblical account to you adhere to?
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3654
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2007 9:32:50 AM

Sorry but even the greatest eruptions of suppervolcanoes have not had enough force to move the earths mass in any way. The thrust produced, although massive, is spread out over the entire mass of the planet.


How do you know?


Again I say, there is nothing in the acreation disk theory to proclude this. If a star forming only throws out lighter elements, then they would neciserily be closer to the parent star. Please explain how this is procluded in the acreation disk theroy.


Still does not deal with insuffecient rotational velocity to achieve orbit.



It makes perfect sense when you remmber that stars when forming, throw out most of the heavy ellements and some of the lighter ellements as well. The heavier ellements are more ussualy imparted with less velocity and so stay close to the star and the lighter ellements are imparted with greater velocity and so tavel further, thus the mix of elements is spread. This is why we see rocky planets, then gas giants, then ice planets.


Nice Old Hypothesis but Unproven theory. I agree that a wide range of velocities may result from Supernovae, but I'm referring to the ones we have been observing lately.


Incorect. You are making the mistake of looking at it on a small scale (universaly speaking). You are forgeting that the gravity of galaxies has an effect, as dose the gravity of all the other objects that it passes and sometimes colides with. If you have one explosin casting material acros the galaxy, you can gaurantee that it will eventally meat up with the material cast off by another explosion at another point of the galaxy. And what happens when to fast moving things hit each other? They slow down.


No I am not ignorant of the black holes at the center of galaxies and the velocity required to balance or escape them. Here in the Milky Way, the typical stellar velocity is between 210 and 240 km/s. This velocity represents the null or lower limit of escape velocity from the Milky Way. This makes anything moving faster than about 150 miles per second over the limit. 0.1c is 18,600 miles per second. This figure was published in Science Magazine 10 years after the fact as the residual velocity of SN1987a. That is over 66 million miles per hour. Well above the escape velocity of the Large Magellanic cloud.

Dec 2006 pg 16-17 Popular Science published the velocity of Cassiopiae A at 12 million miles per hour. That is over 3000 miles per second. This is also suffeciently above the escape velocity for the Milky Way at its current distance from the center. Cass A is only 10,000 light years away from us. Granted we still have a lot of time on Cass A but the one that worries me is the one described in the Book of Mormon. It is also mentioned in the Bible but with much less significance. Time is skewed by distance. We only began seeing the light emitted from SN1987A 20 years ago. It may be 140,000 light years distant. Even at 0.1c its debris will not reach us for at least 1.4 million years. Cass A was observed only a couple hundred years ago. Its debris at .02c is still 500,000 years away. The Star of David, Star of Bethlehem, New Star of the Book of Mormon lit the night side of Earth for a whole night as brightly as the Sun. If it was anything like either SN1987A or Cass A then it had to be much closer to have its ultra bright phase light Earth for 8 hours or so as brightly as the Sun. Its light got here 2007 years ago. If it were only 200 light years distant, and its velocity were similar to SN1987A, it is overdue. Debris from this closer Supernova is now dark. We can no longer see it. We have only the records made by humans a long time ago to warn us of it.
Merry Christmas
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 3655
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2007 8:43:57 PM

Apparently you have not been reading what I’ve been writing. It is unfair of you to ask for facts outside those already observed.

It is not unfair to ask for citation of the interpretation of the facts that you are proposing.


What I've been telling you is your explanations are no longer valid. The Facts are what they have always been.
The "facts" are being discovered and updated on a daily basis.


It is your personal natural explanations which are faulty.
Which personal natural explanations are you referring to? Please elaborate.


You are living in the 18th century and we are now in the 21st century.


In the 1720s, John Hadley with his brothers George and Henry, built the first useful reflecting telescopes, Gregorian and Newtonian.

The light gathering power of an optical telescope is proportional to the square of the diameter of its primary mirror. So a 200 inch would have been able to see galaxies and stars four times fainter (1.5 mag) or twice as far away, as the 100 inch model. The larger the telescope the more could be seen, the limitations were the technology available to maintain precision.

Two typical types of nebulae are illustrated in 19th century astronomy book. One is the Orion Nebula (M.42) which we now know is a cloud of gas and dust in our own galaxy in which new stars are forming, the other is Andromeda (M.31) which we now know is another galaxy similar to our own, the Milky Way.

Until the distances of the spiral nebulae could be measured, the possibility that they were other star systems remained speculative and controversial. They were thought to be new solar systems forming around new stars. But by the beginning of the 19th century, optical astronomy had gone as far as it could go on its own.


The biggest fact is that planetary coalescence in a cloud of debris is an old full of holes idea.

From the Chandra site:
The Sun and other stars shine as a result of nuclear reactions deep in their interiors. These reactions change light elements into heavier ones and release energy in the process. The outflow of energy from the central regions of the star provides the pressure necessary to keep the star from collapsing under its own weight.

A star collapses when the fuel is used up and the energy flow from the core of the star stops. Nuclear reactions outside the core cause the dying star to expand outward in the "red giant" phase before it begins its inevitable collapse.

Stellar Evolution
If the star is about the same mass as the Sun, it will turn into a white dwarf star. If it is somewhat more massive, it may undergo a supernova explosion and leave behind a neutron star. But if the collapsing core of the star is very great—at least three times the mass of the Sun—nothing can stop the collapse. The star implodes to form an infinite gravitational warp in space—a black hole.

The brightest X-ray sources in our galaxy are the remnants of massive stars that have undergone a catastrophic collapse—neutron stars and black holes. Other powerful sources of X-rays are giant bubbles of hot gas produced by exploding stars. White dwarf stars and the hot, rarified outer layers, or coronas, of normal stars are less intense X-ray sources.
To summarize, this tableau illustrates the ongoing drama of stellar evolution, and how the rate of evolution and the ultimate fate of a star depends on its mass.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources/stellar_evolution3.html

Stars are formed in giant clouds of dust and gas, and progress through their normal life as balls of gas heated by thermonuclear reactions in their cores. Depending on their mass, they reach the end of their evolution as a white dwarf, neutron star or black hole. The cycle begins anew as an expanding supershell from one or more supernovas trigger the formation of a new generation of stars. Brown dwarfs have a mass of only a few percent of that of the Sun and cannot sustain nuclear reactions, so they never evolve.

From Michigan U:

Current models of solar system evolution are based on the Nebula Hypothesis, originally formulated by Kant and Laplace. According to this theory, the planets formed from a gas and dust cloud or "Nebula" which surrounded the Sun as it formed. The hypothesis is supported by the observation that young stars do indeed have such nebula around them. Thus planetary systems may arise quite naturally as a side effect of star formation.

The Nebula Hypothesis

The planets of our Solar System formed due to two properties of interstellar clouds: rotation and turbulence. When clouds fragment during contraction, individual fragments turn this way and that, each having inherited the angular momentum (spin) of one or a few discrete whorls or eddies in the original cloud. Each cloud fragment (a potential star) would have rotated faster and faster as it contracted, owing to the physical necessity of conserving its angular momentum - much as a skater spins up when he/she folds in her/his arms. Fragments with low angular momentum form the core and fragments with high angular momentum populate a flattened disk orbiting the core, with a shape similar to many galaxies. Often the core itself is fragmented, leading to binary and multiple star systems.

The role of dust grains

Planets such as our own could not have formed from gas alone, but need matter in the solid phase, such as dust grains. To make dust grains from gas in the nebula, chemical forces are needed. Models show that chemical forces can generate dust grains as big as a few centimeters, but not more. This is where gravitation comes in. The forces of gravity allow the dust grains to collide and coalesce - a process known as accretion.

Accretion

The dust grains continue to accrete slowly, eventually forming clumpy "protoplanets" or "planetesimals" of a few kilometers in dimension. Collisions between the planetesimals eventually leads to a few larger bodies that capture smaller ones. This process is chaotic, with collisions sometimes leading to break-up of the planetesimals, changes in orbits, and sometimes forming craters on the larger bodies.

Calculations suggest that the final stage of accretion into planets took about 100 million years. The craters observed on many satellites were caused by infalling planetesimals late in the accretion stage. Even today, accretion is not quite complete. Meteorites, comets and asteroids are all examples of small bodies in the solar system which have failed to join larger planets. For this reason, their study can give important information on the early solar system

Summary of Planetary Evolution
Four key processes are involved in planetary evolution:

* Spin forms a fragmented disk about the protosun (core) of the shrinking nebula.

* Chemistry, acting on elements in interstellar Nebula, allows the formation of dust grains, up to a few mm in size.

* Gravity allows the dust grains to collide and coalesce (starts "accretion").

* Accretion, over tens of millions of years, builds planets.

3. Chemical Composition of the planets.

To understand the chemical composition of the planets, it is necessary to know the composition of the accreting dust under the conditions (temperature and pressure) of the solar nebula. Studies of meteorites and astronomical observations have shown that the interstellar clouds are reservoirs of heavy elements, such as C, N, and O - elements formed in prior supernovae. There is also evidence for solid grains containing carbon and less volatile elements, probably in the form of metals and silicates.

The direct study of the chemical composition of the dust in interstellar space is difficult, but we can rely on some chemical knowledge to help. We can assume, for example, that there was a clear temperature gradient in the nebula, with gas near the core (the early Sun) being hotter than gas further away. For any given temperature, chemistry tells us what materials exist as gases or as solids. Silicon (the primary constituent of rock) becomes solid at about 1300K, while hydrogen-bearing gases such as methane and ammonium only become solids (ices) at very low temperatures (less than 400K). This gives us the clue we need.

For the gas near the orbit of the accreting Earth (near 600K), only rocky subtances tend to become solids (the temperature is still too high for methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) to freeze). The rocky materials (minerals) came from the elements synthesized in supernova. This explains why the Earth, Mercury, Venus and Mars are all rocky and dense planets.

What happened to all the hydrogen and helium that the Earth must have had in the beginning?

If the Earth formed from a contracting mass of dust and gas, its earliest atmosphere must have been composed of the same gases from which it formed. These gases include hydrogen and helium (the two most abundant gases in the universe), as well as hydrogen compounds such as methane and ammonia. What has happened in the 4.6 billion years since the Earth formed? Where has all the hydrogen and helium gone?

Hydrogen and helium are light molecules that could have escaped the pull of the Earth's gravity. The remaining gases may have been blown into space by the heat generated from the bombardment of rocky material from space or from an outpouring of extra energy from the Sun. This could happen by the action of the solar wind - a flow of energetic charged particles from the hot outer layers of the Sun's atmosphere. The solar wind is still observed today, but it could have been stronger in the early phase of the Sun's existence. In any case, it is clear that the Earth was stripped of most of its hydrogen and helium early in its development.

4. Why do the outer planets have different composition from the inner planets?

The outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) have compositions quite different from the Earth and more consistent with the composition of the solar system - lots of hydrogen and helium. Table 1 compares the densities of the inner and outer planets.

The reason for the difference between the rocky dense inner planets and the icy/gaseous outer planets is simple: the composition of each planet is determined by the type of material that can survive in the solid form given the temperature of the particular part of the Nebula. To understand this, we will need to show a simplified picture (Figure 3) that illustrates the temperature at which particular gases or vapors first condense and become solids.

The inner planets were formed in the hot part of the nebula, where only rocky substances (silicates and metals) can condense. The outer (Jovian) planets were formed in the further reaches of the nebula where the temperatures were cold enough for ices to form and lock up hydrogen.

Once the first rocky mineral grains had condensed at the orbital distance of the Earth, they started the accretion process. The excess hydrogen and helium would have been blown away or lost through atmospheric escape processes as discussed above. In the case of the large outer planets, the stronger gravitational pull was sufficient to retain the light gases and the cold temperatures allowed them to be locked up in icy solids.

Sequence of condensation of minerals in the nebula as a function of temperature. At temperatures above about 1300K, metals and silicates can condense and become solid dust grains. At lower temperatures more volatile minerals become solids, and at temperatures of less than ~400K, hydrogen-bearing gases such as methane and ammonium become solids. Hydrogen and helium remain gases. For the inner planets, at high temperatures, the planet-building dust grains were made up of rocky materials (silicates, iron, etc.). The hydrogen and helium could have been blown away by the solar wind. For the outer planets, the hydrogen and helium was retained by a combination of the larger gravity for these massive bodies and the formation of ice.

5. What classification schemes are used to study our planet?

We introduce here two simple classification schemes for planet Earth - one for the interior and one for the atmosphere.

Structure of the Earth

The most detailed information about the Earth's interior is obtained from seismology, the study of how shock waves propagate through the Earth. Seismology has determined the structure of the earth as seen in Figure 4. Apart from the thin outer regions of atmosphere, ocean and crust, the Earth is composed of three main layers. The mantle is about 3000km thick and makes up around 65% of the total mass. Under the mantle is a denser core which has an outer liquid region and an inner solid region. Table 2 summarizes the properties of the various regions.

* Differentiation is the gravitational separation of materials according to their specific gravities in a liquid mixture that was originally homogeneous throughout. A solid cannot be differentiated.
* The layered structure of the Earth (with density increasing with depth) can only be interpreted as being the product of differentiation. Therefore, the Earth must have been liquid at one time.

Structure of the Atmosphere

The atmosphere is commonly divided into a number of layers or "spheres" that are punctuated by transition regions or "pauses". The nomenclature used dates back to the 1950's and is based on the temperature structure of the atmosphere.

Summary

The solar system was formed from an interstellar nebula. Astronomers can see examples of this process today. The contracting core of the nebula gained sufficient energy from the gravitational collapse to initiate fusion reactions, powering the Sun. The planets were formed at the same time through the process of accretion, using about 1% of the total mass. The whole theory is called the Nebula Hypothesis. The slow rotation of the nebula led to a flattened disk shape - the planets are still in this "ecliptic" plane.

The Nebula Hypothesis requires that a combination of chemical and gravitational forces initiatied and continued the process of planetary accretion. Small grains of chemically-produced solid material accreted by gravitational forces, first into small bodies known as planetesimals and then, more slowly, into larger planets. Comets and some types of meteorites are probably remains of the original planetesimals. The composition of the Earth and other inner planets is dominated by elements which condensed above about 600 K, whereas the temperature in the outer solar system was low enough for formation of ices of HO, NH3, and CH4.

The chemical composition of the Earth was governed by the types of minerals that were able to condense and become solids at the temperature of the accreting Earth. This led to a rocky, silicate composition, as for the other inner planets and moons. The Earth lost most of its primordial hydrogen and helium (made by the Big Bang) through escape processes. The outer planets retained most of the light gases due to their larger size (greater gravity) and the cold temperatures which enabled ices to form. Much research work remains to be done to interpret the detailed chemistry of the planets.

Classification schemes are in common use for the interior and atmosphere of the Earth. The interior scheme has been derived from seimological measurements. The atmospheric scheme is derived from temperature measurements.


Because I point out the absence of something, you pooh pooh the logic.
What absence? I'm sorry I do not follow.


The Facts are that the planets all have significantly different chemical makeup. This does not make logical sense if they all came from the same supernova debris. The system should have been more homogenous. The fact that the Earth, Mars, Mercury, and Venus are Rocky and the outer planets were Gas giants, used to be expected to be the way we should find other planetary systems. Then we find a super Jupiter in orbit around a nearby star where a Mercury like planet should be. The theory fell apart. It no longer can be accepted.
It has been explained above... it depends on the size, heat and materials in the original nebula cloud.


You are acting like the old religious leaders of Galileo's time. You are insisting that the earth is the center of the universe when moons can be observed to go around other planets. You are rejecting the facts because if someone were to convince you that an intelligent director (ID) were involved then said intelligent director would have some right to say how his planets should be used. You would be morally obligated to behave in a manner he has specified. You obviously don't want to be obligated to anyone so you reject the obvious just as the old church leaders rejected the truth because they were in a power and control position. Their job was on the line. If they were believed to be wrong, then everything else they taught could be brought into question.
This supposition is a personal opinion of why others do not hold to the same ideas you do. It is assumption. Also it has no basis in fact. There is no way for you to know why any person "believes" as they do.. it is mindreading and projecting.. it is also your OPINION of another poster and therefore is off topic. If you can substantiate this psychological process, please do. Psychology and sociology is a fascinating subject. I do propose another thread for this though.


You need to watch the Discovery channel and the History channel a bit more and a little less Spike and MTV.
Another unecessary unsubstantiated assumption .Off Topic and inflammatory.


In order for the elements beyond Iron 26 in the periodic table to be here, they had to not only have been produced in the cataclysmic explosion of a star, but blown out from that star's gravity well with sufficient velocity to escape that gravity well. If they came from a super nova of our own sun, then our sun is not in its proper place in the chart of star lives. The rotational velocity of our sun is way too slow to have spun out planets with sufficient orbital velocity to remain in orbit.

Our star has never gone nova, it is a young star. It also does not have the mass to nova.. it will become a red giant in about 5-8 billion years and then maybe condense into a white dwarf. Elements of that degree of density are created by MASSIVE stars going supernova.. after the explosion they do not become "star systems", they either become white dwarves, neutron stars or black holes, depending on their original mass. They become the new material that create some nebulae... they are not ever again a "star" such as they were before.


Gravity can only hold fusion reactions together up to Iron. In every place where fission is going on, there is also a little fusion going on. Breeder reactors are the most obvious evidence of this. U238 is becoming U239 which gives up an electron from the nucleus changing its atomic number from 92 to 93. Uranium becomes Neptunium. But that doesn't stop there because another electron is soon emitted decreasing the negative charge in the nucleus another notch to up the atomic number to 94 Plutonium. How can we know this if the elements are not here? How can you explain it in your natural way?
Electrons are not emitted.. they either exist, or they don't. They do however change position and therefore the electrical charge of an atom (ionization) For an atom to have an extra electron it had to come from somewhere (another atom?) for it to lose an electron the electron is "stolen" by another atom. This process is what causes radiation, if I understand that correctly.. and why "free radicals" are a danger to organic systems. Stable elements have a stable electron population.


This is ID Intelligent Directed creation.
Maybe, but you still have not provided the hypotheses and the testable theories for this assumption.


We are doing. It used to be said that it didn't happen in the natural world, but then they found Plutonium in the ground in Africa. Oh Oh, we have natural atomic reactors functioning on the earth? Now we have a much bigger problem. As I explained previously, When 1 CC of U235 is completely fissioned to its most common fission byproducts, these byproduct need more elbow room. They want to spread out to fill 1900+cc of space. That is a humongous explosive force. It is a force in the neighborhood of sending debris outward at velocities of 0.3c or 1/3 the velocity of light. Well above the required escape velocity for a large star. In fact it is so far above escape velocity that the residual velocity of the debris is reported to be in the millions (plural) of miles per hour range. There is nothing out there to slow it down once it gets past the limits of the gravity well of its origin.
This actually supports the nebula hypothesis... elements must escape the gravity of a star to become the material for new systems.. the universe is a big recycling plant.the speed of light is about 670,616,629.2 miles per hour. So far there is no way for matter to travl faster than this... even in "group velocity". the frontal wave is still "c.". I will have to ask a nuclear physicist about the expansion of U235 after fission reaction. I simply do not know if that is correct or if it applies above the nuclear scale. I will check it out.


Fission going under our feet has a similar consequence. It produces volcanic eruptions. These volcanic eruptions may serve as thrusters to keep a planet in a stable orbit. Or they could be used in bigger size to decelerate a planet and park it in a nice stable orbit. But that would leave a huge hole or hollow space behind. Well, I'll leave it there as If I write too long a post it won't be read and you apparently are not absorbing what I've been writing anyway.
Fission causes volcanic activity? I always thought it was friction and gravity. Our mantle is molten... but slowly cooling over the eons.. the tectonic plates of the earth "float" on top of this molten interior, tectonic pressures from the plates rubbing against one another causes volcanic activity as pressure is released from the mantle in the form of volcanic activity and gases escaping. Akin to a pot boiling on a stove..our planet is still volcanically active... I would think (and can probably cite) that our motion in orbit, our electromagnetic field and other external pressures from the sun and maybe even the other celestial objects (the moon has a strong effect on earth) contributes to the friction and movement of the earth's plates. I don't think fission does it... or we'd be a star, not a planet. Maybe there is fission on a nuclear level.. but I would think it was pretty darn tiny. Another thing I will have to investigate.


Yes, the range of possibilites is very large. Perhaps infinite. What I am talking about is the recently observed phenomena.
I'm sorry I must have missed the sources for this information, could you provide a link? What recently observed phenomena?


No the old model did not predict gas giants in the close orbital position.
Probaby not.. I don't know. But from the above information I got that the creation of a planetary system is probably not as common as binary or even tertiary star systems. Considering that every nebula and gas cloud is unique, I would think that a great deal of the star systems formed would be star clusters, or in the case of not enough mass a star and a companion...or maybe even a few. These would not really be "planets" as we know them.. they would be like jupiter... gas giants which did not have enough mass to begin nuclear fission, umm I believe they are classified as brown dwarves. So yes, it is actually logical for stars to have gas companions. The discovery of exo-planets is extremely recent... most we can't even see, only calculate that they exist because of the "wobble" of the star we are looking at, "rocky" planets around other stars..have they actually discovered any yet? 1? 2 maybe? We have a hard time being sure about the objects in our own solar system much less what is in orbit around another star.


The biblical account was written in extreme brevaty for the sake of newly freed uneducated slaves whose attention span was too short to take in the whole thing.
Freed from where? The veracity of the "Egyptian" exodus is in serious doubt. The people of Judah WERE kept in babylonia for a time though, we have corroberating evidence of that. Abraham was from Mesopotamia (Ur or Ninevah, I'm not sure)... not exactly morons. I realize that people 3 or 4 thousand years ago did not have the scientific language we do now, but they weren't idiots... astrology was a highly developed science in those days.. there is lots of evidence that the ancient cultures were more sophisticated and knowledgeable than we give them credit for.


I'm a fan of the restored gospel through Joseph Smith Jr. the Prophet. At the risk of decreasing my own credibility even more, I am no longer a member of the main stream LDS church but still attend services regularly. The published doctrine differs from what the general membership believes because many have only recently been converted mostly from the catholic or protestant faiths. They tend to let go of the old doctrine slowly.
I haven't seen any corraborating proof of Joseph Smith's stuff either, I'm still waiting to see those golden tablets, or at least read something from an accredited institute that they have been verified and studied. Funny, I am part Cherokee and have quite a few good friends among the First Nations peoples...none of them ever mentioned anything about there being any sort of "christianity" or Judaism here before the white man came... now why would god wait for white men to come to America before revealing himself in "prophecy"? Does god have a problem with First Nations peoples? They were here for over 10,000 years, and God never spoke to them? Why? I am not "bashing" Mormonism, but like any other religion the "evidence" is weak.

One of my best friends is Mormon, I love her family.. lovely people. She told me that Mormons believe they will attain their own planets to rule (well, the guys anyway)... is that a fact? Or was she pulling my leg? Now I find THAT interesting. I'm very curious about Mormonism.


By the way, Whose interpretation of the Biblical account to you adhere to?
I don't adhere to anything but my own good common sense and ability to reason, and what my heart tells me.. to do that I must be open to information wherever it comes from. I've studied from quite a few versions of the Bible, but at the moment have become quite interested in Hebrew scholarly translations from the closest thing they have to the original texts, and also the Dead Sea Scrolls, very interesting. Scorpiomover is quite knowledgable about hebrew translation... I've learned a lot from him. I think the KJV is a piece of garbage, worst translation ever. I only keep the KJV my family handed-down, for posterity. I have 8 versions of the bible in my library, including a Catholic Bible, much other literature from the churches I studied with... plus many other religious texts from around the world. I couldn't say that any of the Bible translations are accurate, some more than others... it's fun to compare them though.

Peace
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3656
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/21/2007 1:40:13 AM
To Ravenstar66 and all
Thanks and appologies
Long post. My appologies to those offended by my opinions stated earlier, It is difficult to vent here. Frustration is difficult to deal with when people don't understand what one writes. I agree that the things you refer to as opinion were just that. I usually express them as opinions. Sometimes such outbusrts are necessary to catch the attention of persons about whom such opinions are held.

You quote from some older theories and hypothisises. The facts I have been referring to have always been facts. The event of SN1987A was over 140,000 years ago. The Event of Cass A was over 10,000 years ago. The observation of these two theory altering events are a mere 20 and 200 years ago. The actual measurement of the velocity of the debris is less than 10 years old. Anything written before 2001 may need serious revision. There is a serious problem with the old theories. Let me point out that I do not refute any observed phenomena.
I have presented three major facts ONE: SN1987A debris velocity. TWO: Cass A Debris velocity. THREE Gravity Sling shot math and explaination.

It may well be that there have been big enough stars explode whose escape velocities have been far greater than the 0.2c of SN1987A. Bear in mind that this is just a rough estimate and may be less that 1 significant digit of accuracy. It was originally said that SN1987A was the star named Sandulek. Sandulek was believed to be in our galaxy less than 50,000 light years away. Then later it was said that SN1987A was 100,000 light years distant. Later still it was published that SN1987A was 140,000 light years away. Obviously these diverse figures have a dramatic effect on all other calculations. The farther away we presume it to be, the faster its debris calculates to be moving based on the size of the optical image and the angle of view represented by each pixel of the image. I'm a little more inclined to believe the distance figures for Cass A due to its continuous presence in the northern sky. Only Southern hemisphere and space telescope astronomers can observe SN1987A.


I'm sorry I must have missed the sources for this information, could you provide a link? What recently observed phenomena?


See last two paragraphs of post just prior to yours.


Maybe, but you still have not provided the hypotheses and the testable theories for this assumption.


I don't feel obligated to provide the hypotheses and testable theories because I am not the originator. I'm using Newtonian math and published observed phenomena.


I haven't seen any corraborating proof of Joseph Smith's stuff either, I'm still waiting to see those golden tablets, or at least read something from an accredited institute that they have been verified and studied. Funny, I am part Cherokee and have quite a few good friends among the First Nations peoples...none of them ever mentioned anything about there being any sort of "christianity" or Judaism here before the white man came... now why would god wait for white men to come to America before revealing himself in "prophecy"? Does god have a problem with First Nations peoples? They were here for over 10,000 years, and God never spoke to them? Why? I am not "bashing" Mormonism, but like any other religion the "evidence" is weak.


Never is an infinite time. Are you sure? How do you know?
Have you sincerely looked for evidence? Have you read the Book of Mormon?

The Archeological evidence is very strong. Egyptian influence in Pyramids of Central and South America, The Tree of Life Stone, The Statues of big headed people attributed to even more ancient inhabitants of Americas. Etc. Etc. Etc. All parallel the Book of Mormon Story and could not possibly have been known by an uneducated farm boy from Vermont who moved to New York when crops failed.

Of course the archeologists who are obliged to keep to the Atheistic views of the Scientific Intelligencia will deny and spin it so as not to be connected. After all, most of them have never read the Book of Mormon either.

You mentioned the possibility of Mormons becoming planetary rulers. The simple straight forward answer is that it is part of the doctrine and Biblically supported in Hebrews Chapter 8 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we
are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are]
not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be
revealed in us." but, as mentioned before, most Mormons do not know their own doctrine and are slow to adopt it in favor of their long held catholic and protestent views.

Prophecy and Prophetic fulfillment would seem to be appropriate evidence to be presented in support of Creation. So I'm going to respond to these queries and hope that readers are suffeciently mature not to be offended.

One very well fulfilled prophecy is in regard to Joseph Smith Jr. and the Book of Mormon. That his name would be had for good and evil all over the world. ref omitted as irrelevant to thread.

The main prophecy of interest to this thread is the New Star Prophecy found in


Helaman Chapter 14
1 AND now it came to pass that Samuel, the Lamanite, did prophesy a great many more things which cannot be written.

2 And behold, he said unto them: Behold, I give unto you a sign; for five years more cometh, and behold, then cometh the Son of God to redeem all those who shall believe on his name.

3 And behold, this will I give unto you for a sign at the time of his coming; for behold, there shall be great lights in heaven, insomuch that in the night before he cometh there shall be no darkness, insomuch that it shall appear unto man as if it was day.

4 Therefore, there shall be one day and a night and a day, as if it were one day and there were no night; and this shall be unto you for a sign; for ye shall know of the rising of the sun and also of its setting; therefore they shall know of a surety that there shall be two days and a night; nevertheless the night shall not be darkened; and it shall be the night before he is born.


And its fulfillment which is also supported in the nativity stories in the Bible.



3 Nephi Chapter 1
18 For they knew that the prophets had testified of these things for many years, and that the sign which had been given was already at hand; and they began to fear because of their iniquity and their unbelief.

19 And it came to pass that there was no darkness in all that night, but it was as light as though it was mid-day. And it came to pass that the sun did rise in the morning again, according to its proper order; and they knew that it was the day that the Lord should be born, because of the sign which had been given.

20 And it had come to pass, yea, all things, every whit, according to the words of the prophets.

21 And it came to pass also that a new star did appear, according to the word.


Another issue I've not dealt with is the Gold plates which Ravenstar66 referred to. There are 12 witnesses to the actuality of such plates. All of whom went to their graves without recanting their testimony thereof even though most apostatized from the church. All were treated badly by unbelievers an don't want to be believers. With such evidence of the wickedness of men, I have no problem with the Gold being witheld due to the information recorded thereon. There was a portion thereof which was sealed and Joseph was not permitted to translate it. Today there are several sites claiming to be publishing the material contained in the sealed portion. The earliest is copyrighted 1987 and I saw it in 1997. The others, in my opinion are attempts to deceive and/or test us. The 1987 version seems worthy of being sealed while the others are just elaborate and extensive commentaries on existing unsealed scripture. Search for Sacred Scriptures or The Sealed Portion. Either will produce results. Good hunting.
: Seasons Greetings
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 3657
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/21/2007 11:17:19 AM
Ah yes, the witnesses to the plates. Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Joseph Smith Sr., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel Harrison Smith and a few others I think. Most or all were excommunicated or apostasized from the church, and to further their credibility even more you can see that nobody was related to each other.

Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Abraham, a text that has been included in the canon of LDS church since 1880, by translating ancient egyptian papyrus which he claimed was written by Abraham and told of his life and travels. The LDS made the mistake of later having the papyrus translated by true egyptologists and discovered that everything Smith 'translated' was a lie, the papyrus were merely funerary texts dating to 1st century BC. The name Abraham did not appear anywhere on the scrolls, they were 1500 after Abraham's lifetime and therefore 1500 years younger than Smith claimed they were. This Book of Abraham contains much LDS doctrine such as Exaltation (the belief that man can be like God) and Pre-Mortal Existance (the belief that the soul existed before conception - Smith claimed that dark-skinned people sinned before they were born and as a result God tainted them with dark skin to curse them. Smith apparently didn't like black people).

The Book of Mormon is quite harmonious with itself

2 Nephi 5:15
And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.
2 Nephi 5:16
And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land....


Nephi navigated using a compass 1800 years before compasses were invented, found fruit and honey in regions where there were none, found cows horses oxen donkeys and goats when he arrived in the americas in 590BC - which was about 2000 years before they existed when europeans brought them over, Nephi made swords before steel was invented...the absurdities go on and on.

Here's a passage for ravenstar:

1 Nephi 2:20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.

So although native americans had already lived there for tens of thousands of years, God made that land just for Nephi and his family.

Smith claimed he was a prophet and made many prophecies. Naturally, most were wrong. Some of his false prophecies can be viewed here:
http://www.irr.org/mit/jsfalpro.html
http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/falseprophetjs.htm

Smith had many wives and was cheating on them. When he discovered that a local newspaper was going to publish a story about that, he had it burnt down. He was later imprisoned and killed by a mob of local citizens. Many mormons consider him a martyr. His successor, Brigham Young, had quite the family life. Wiki has a list of his 51 wives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young#Listing_of_wives

Since someone decided to use this thread to promote their faith, I felt obligated to discuss a more objective view of that faith.
Hopefully we can get back on topic and discuss evidence for creation/evolution.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3658
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/21/2007 1:54:45 PM
Why should I be surprised that we have Anti-Mormons in the group. Good of you to balance the equation. Of course we are all free to examine both sides. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is only the fastest growing religion on the face of the planet. But you see here fulfillment of the first prophecy regarding Smith I paraphrased. Of course we can’t have the truth published unopposed. That wouldn’t be fair. We also have clear confirmation of the Atheistic attitude of the intelligencia who invented Science to repress God. It is true that some prophecies go unfulfilled due to the agency of man. Jonah foretold the destruction of Nineveh and was extremely disappointed when the whole city repented and were spared. Yet Jesus commends Jonah as a great prophet and we have not a single fulfilled prophecy from him. Joseph Smith on the other hand has many fulfilled prophecies. There would be no reason to put Joseph Smith down if he were not a threat to the beliefs of the workers of evil. If there were nothing to Joseph Smith’s prophecies, there would be no need for such adamant opposition. The greater the opposition, the more likely that there is something important there.

I was merely responding to questions posed by another reader. I’m an Apostate of the LDS religion myself but like the witnesses, I cannot deny the truth. The Root of Apostate is the same as the root of Apostle. I’m think of myself as a graduate of the LDS religion. I’ve learned to discern truth from error for myself. The more you rub some things, the bigger they get.

There are genuine seekers of truth and there are those who are of the mind set, don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up. There are also those who just want to have fun and don’t really care about truth.

In a sense this is a prophecy, or maybe a restatement of an old one. There is a storm coming and it is not a weather related storm of this planet’s atmosphere. Such can be devastating. This one will darken the sun and turn the moon to blood. Regardless of whether or not any of us can get out there and divert some of the larger chunks from their destructive paths, The Gas and Dust with it could alter the life zone and be a mass extinction event Burning the entire surface of this planet. Stuff traveling so fast it doesn’t have time to burn up in the atmosphere. Penetrating deep enough that even those hiding in fallout shelters may be unable to survive or have a surface to return to when the storm passes. The ancient prophecy has always been that the Earth would be cleansed by fire. All I’m doing is letting you all know how the Fire cleansing can happen from a scientific point of view. If you choose to ignore it and burn, you are free to choose that. I would like to do all in my power to be part of the makers rather than the shakers.

I have been tasked to present a testable provable theory

This is ID Intelligent Directed creation.
Maybe, but you still have not provided the hypotheses and the testable theories for this assumption.


I have no idea where sufficient funds and technology will come from to test this theory, but I believe we are the manifestation of God's infinite creativity. As his offspring we are expected to become like him. We must stop pushing him onto higher and higher unreachable pedestals as we begin to see our likeness to him. In a previous post, I quoted Romans 8 about our being joint heirs with Christ. Here I refer you to Jesus parable of the talents. Different rewards for different degrees of success dealing with what we have been given. The best of whom was made ruler over 10 cities.
Jesus is the name we use to refer to the Body which began Flesh and Bone existence coincident with the arrival of light from a nearby supernova. The Spirit entity whose temple that body is, was known as YHWH translated Jehovah in some cases, Jeshua in others both having a feminine "a" sound at the end which is why the Greeks and Latin/Romans substituted the masculine "us" making it Jesus. This Spirit Entity claims to have created this earth, not out of nothing as many have supposed, but out of already existing materials in a carefully planned place (see Abraham 3:24-26) Which contrary to the ant Mormon words of Rockondon is still published in the pearl of great price. It was to be a place where we, the spirit offspring of the same Father as the spirit entity YHWH were to obtain mortal bodies and be tested.

The following is a plan, as well as an explanation of another way in which such diverse planets made of heavy metals expelled as we witness having occurred in SN1987A and Cass A with very high velocities may be intelligently created and decelerated, and parked, in planned stable orbits.


Super 200 Solar Distant
Nova ~ly System Star

\|/==================\\
-*-================= -==================*
/|\==================//

On the left is a supernova about 200 light years distant from the solar system the light from which arrived between 1BC and 1AD. That portion of the debris effected by the Sun's gravity and calculated to either impact the sun or one of the planets in orbit around the sun needs to be nudged into trajectories which will cause it to miss the sun, or planet and sun, to impact with other intelligently nudged chunks on the side opposite the sun from the origin using the sun's gravity in addition to thrust provided by fissionable material mined from the debris itself, thus using the very force which set it in motion at such High velocity it may be intelligently diverted it into carefully selected collision points along the path beyond the Sun.

Since this debris is already traveling well above escape velocity of the solar system, it will gain velocity in the process having more time for gravitational acceleration than gravitational deceleration via the Sun.

Selecting which chunks of debris impact our ID forming planet will bring fissionable materials back into close proximity which will result in neutrons being emitted by the fission of one atom being unable to escape the whole mass without triggering another fission. The non-fissionable materials should be directed to impact later to form a durable shell to contain this fissioning material. How this is to be done depends on what is available to be used and in what quantity. Mistakes have been made in the past possibly resulting in our Asteroid belt, Kuiper Belt and Ort Cloud. The nuclear fission going on inside the shell inflates it gently like a balloon. At appropriate and variable times (see along the right side of the drawing) Fission explosions may be set off to open holes in the shell and vent the Gas and dust byproducts of fission as deceleration thrust as well as retro-thrust to insert the newly ID formed planet into stable orbit around the target star.

Obviously this will require a long time so we best work on becoming immortal as it is believed Jesus is. It will also require significant advance in technology as well. Those who hope to be caught up to meet him in the air, or above the air in vacuum in his City Ship described in Rev. 21, will need to throw themselves up there. Hopefully His database will be far superior and make up for any lack we have in our preparations. If we wish to live with Him, we should be prepared to participate in the work He has told us he is engaged in, namely creating worlds without number.


Oh, one more thing, those who think electrons are not emitted from the nucleus of atoms need to look up the definition of Beta particles.
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 3660
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/21/2007 3:02:34 PM
I really don't know how much more evidence I could post. My information came from the Chandra Site which is completely up to date. I have also looked up more references to the Cassiopeia A nebula.


Cassiopeia A
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cassiopeia A
Observation data
(Epoch J2000)
Supernova type Unknown
Remnant type Shell
Host Galaxy Milky Way
Constellation Cassiopeia
Right ascension 23h 23m 26s
Declination +58° 48′
Galactic
coordinates G111.7-2.1
Discovery Date 1947
Peak magnitude (V) 6?
Distance 10000 light-years

Cassiopeia A (Cas A) is a supernova remnant in the constellation Cassiopeia and the brightest extrasolar radio source in the sky, with a flux of 2720 janskies at 1 GHz. The supernova occurred approximately 10,000 light years away in the Milky Way.[1] The expanding cloud of material left over from the supernova is now approximately 10 light years across. Despite its radio brilliance, however, it is extremely faint optically, and is only visible on long-exposure photographs.

It is believed to be approximately 300 years old but there are no historical records of any sightings of the progenitor supernova, probably due to interstellar dust absorbing optical wavelength radiation before it reached Earth. Possible explanations lean toward the idea that the source star was unusually massive and had previously ejected much of its outer layers. These outer layers would have cloaked the star and reabsorbed much of the light released as the inner star collapsed.

Cas A is 3C461 in the Third Cambridge Catalogue of Radio Sources and G111.7-2.1 in the Green Catalog of Supernova Remnants.

It is known that the expansion shell has a temperature of around 50 million degrees Fahrenheit (30 megakelvins), and is travelling at more than ten million miles per hour (4 Mm/s).

Cas A is the strongest radio source in the sky beyond our solar system, and was among the first discrete sources to be found, in 1947. The optical component was first identified in 1950. In 1979, Shklovsky predicted that Cas A had a black hole.[2] In 1999, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory found a "hot point-like source" close to the center of the nebula that is quite likely the neutron star or black hole predicted but not previously found.[3][4]

Expansion

Calculations working back from the currently observed expansion point to an explosion around 1667, although astronomer William Ashworth and others have suggested that the Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed may have inadvertently observed the supernova on August 16, 1680, when he catalogued a star near its position. At any rate, no supernova in the Milky Way has been visible to the naked eye from Earth since. Observations of the exploded star through the Hubble telescope have shown that, despite the original belief that the remnants were expanding in an uniform manner, there are 2 opposing jets of debris that are traveling at 32 million miles per hour. This speed is estimated to be 20 million miles per hour faster than the rest of the debris.[1] When the view of the expanding star uses colors to differentiate materials of different chemical compositions, it shows that similar materials often remain gathered together in the remnants of the explosion.[1]


I am dense I guess. I don't understand what the remnant of this supernova means to you.


Smithsonian/NASA ADS Astronomy Abstract Service

· Find Similar Abstracts (with default settings below)
· Electronic Refereed Journal Article (HTML)
· Full Refereed Journal Article (PDF/Postscript)
· arXiv e-print (arXiv:astro-ph/0509067)
· On-line Data
· References in the article
· Citations to the Article (11) (Citation History)
· Refereed Citations to the Article
· SIMBAD Objects (22)
· Also-Read Articles (Reads History)
·
· Translate Abstract
Title:
Discovery of Outlying High-Velocity Oxygen-Rich Ejecta in Cassiopeia A
Authors:
Fesen, Robert A.; Hammell, Molly C.; Morse, Jon; Chevalier, Roger A.; Borkowski, Kazimierz J.; Dopita, Michael A.; Gerardy, Christopher L.; Lawrence, Stephen S.; Raymond, John C.; van den Bergh, Sidney
Affiliation:
AA(Department of Physics and Astronomy, 6127 Wilder Laboratory, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755.), AB(Department of Physics and Astronomy, 6127 Wilder Laboratory, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755.), AC(Department of Physics and Astronomy, Arizona State University, Box 871504, Tempe, AZ 85287.), AD(Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 3818, Charlottesville, VA 22903.), AE(Department of Physics, North Carolina State University, Box 8202, Raleigh, NC 27695.), AF(Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Cotter Road, Weston Creek, ACT 2611, Australia.), AG(Astrophysics Group, Imperial College, Blackett Laboratory, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, UK.), AH(Department of Physics and Astronomy, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549.), AI(Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.), AJ(Dominion Astrophysical Observatory, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, NRC of Canada, 5071 West Saanich Road, Victoria, BC V9E 2E7, Canada.)
Publication:
The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 636, Issue 2, pp. 859-872. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:
01/2006
Origin:
UCP
ApJ Keywords:
ISM: Abundances, ISM: Individual: Name: Cassiopeia A, ISM: Kinematics and Dynamics, ISM: Supernova Remnants
Abstract Copyright:
(c) 2006: The American Astronomical Society
DOI:
10.1086/498092
Bibliographic Code:
2006ApJ...636..859F
Abstract
Analysis of broadband HST ACS and WFPC2 images of the young Galactic supernova remnant Cassiopeia A reveals a far larger population of outlying, high-velocity knots of ejecta with a broader range of chemical properties than previously suspected. In this paper, we concentrate on a ~=1.5 arcmin2 region located along the eastern limb of the remnant where we identify three main classes of outer ejecta: (1) knots dominated by [N II] λλ6548, 6583 emission, (2) knots dominated by oxygen emission lines, especially [O II] λλ7319, 7330, and (3) knots with emission-line strengths similar to the [S II]-strong fast-moving knot (FMK) ejecta commonly seen in the main emission shell. Mean transverse velocities derived from observed proper motion for N-rich, O-rich, and FMK-like knots identified in this region were found to be 8100, 7900, and 7600 km s-1, respectively. The discovery of a significant population of O-rich ejecta situated between the suspected N-rich outer photospheric layer and S-rich FMK-like ejecta suggests that the progenitor's chemical layers were not completely disrupted by the supernova explosion outside of the remnant's northeast and southwest high-velocity ``jet'' regions. In addition, we find the majority of O-rich outer ejecta at projected locations out beyond the remnant's fastest moving Fe-rich X-ray emission material seen in Chandra and XMM-Newton data along the eastern limb, suggesting that penetration of Fe-rich material up through the S- and Si-rich mantle did not extend past the progenitor's N- or O-rich outer layers for this section of the remnant.

Based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555.



Cassiopeia A

Through a series of observations in 2004, the Chandra X-ray Observatory accumulated a million seconds of observations on Cassiopeia A, a remnant of a supernova explosion. Cas A was the first object Chandra observed, and it has continued to probe ever deeper into its structure and composition. These new observations were arranged by Una Hwang of Goddard Space Flight Center.

The three color image (below, center) shows an outer ring (enhanced in green via the color coding of the energies) that marks the location of the shock wave generated by the supernova explosion. A large, jet-like structure protruded beyond the shock wave to the upper left. Surprisingly, X-ray spectra show that the jet has relatively large amount of silicon and low amount of iron. The cause for this is part of on-going detailed studies. In addition, enhancing the image to show just the silicon (below, right) reveals a counter-jet to the lower right.

Iron, however, is present in the remnant. The bright blue region just inside the shock wave on the lower left is composed of iron gas. It was somehow ejected in a direction almost perpendicular to the jets.

One curious feature of Cas A is that the central neutron star (visible in the broadband image, below left) is quiet, unlike the pulsars that lie in the center of the Crab nebula and the Vela supernova remnant. A working hypothesis is that the explosion that created Cassiopeia A produced high-speed jets similar to but less energetic than the hypernova jets thought to produce gamma-ray bursts. During the explosion, the neutron star may have developed an extremely strong magnetic field that helped to accelerate the jets. This strong magnetic field later stifled any pulsar wind activity, so the neutron star today resembles other strong-field neutron stars (a.k.a. "magnetars") in lacking a pulsar wind nebula.



Cassiopeia A is a supernova remnant at distance 11,000 light-years in our galaxy in the consellation Cassiopeia. The original star, about 15 to 20 times more massive than our sun, died in a cataclysmic "supernova" explosion relatively recently in our own Milky Way galaxy. Using the additional information from the infrared capability of Spitzer, researchers could piece together the details of the explosion, layer by layer. "Now we can better reconstruct how the star exploded," said Dr. William Reach of NASA's Spitzer Science Center, Pasadena, Calif. "It seems that most of the star's original layers flew outward in successive order, but at different average speeds depending on where they started."

Cassiopeia A provided excellent data for studying the anatomy of a supernova explosion. Because it is young and relatively close to our solar system, it can be observed carefully with many instruments. In a few hundred years or so, Cas A's scattered remains will have completely mixed together, forever erasing important clues about how the star lived and died.

It is thought that the associated supernova may have occurred near 1680 when a star near that location was recorded by , but later could not be found. Cassiopeia A is the strongest radio source in the sky outside the solar sytem. The supernova remnant was found among the earliest discrete radio sources, in 1947 by radio astronomers from Cambridge, England. This radio source was first named Cassiopeia A and later cataloged 3C 461. Its optical counterpart coudn't be found until a more precise position was obtained, by radio interferometry in 1950. Consequently, David Dewhirst of Cambridge obtained first deep optical photos of this region in the sky and discovered a strange faint nebula, which was then investigated by Walter Baade and Rudolph Minkowski with the then-new Palomar 5-meter telescope (Baade & Minkowski, 1954). Spectroscopic observations soon confirmed its nature as the rapidly expanding shell of a supernova remnant, also cataloged as G111.7-2.1. Within two years, American astronomers were able to determine its angular expansion rate, and calculated back that the expansion must have started around the year AD 1667.

Sources

* NASA Spitzer article
* Cassiopeia A SEDS article
* NASA Krause Cassiopeia A


From SFLorg:

Cassiopeia A - The colorful aftermath of a violent stellar death

29-Aug-2006: A new image taken with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope provides a detailed look at the tattered remains of a supernova explosion known as Cassiopeia A (Cas A). It is the youngest known remnant from a supernova explosion in the Milky Way. The new Hubble image shows the complex and intricate structure of the star’s shattered fragments.

The image is a composite made from 18 separate images taken using Hubble’s Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), and it shows the Cas A remnant as a broken ring of bright filamentary and clumpy stellar ejecta. These huge swirls of debris glow with the heat generated by the passage of a shockwave from the supernova blast. The various colors of the gaseous shards indicate differences in chemical composition. Bright green filaments are rich in oxygen, red and purple are sulfur, and blue are composed mostly of hydrogen and nitrogen.

A supernova such as the one that resulted in Cas A is the explosive demise of a massive star that collapses under the weight of its own gravity. The collapsed star then blows its outer layers into space in an explosion that can briefly outshine its entire parent galaxy. Cas A is relatively young, estimated to be only about 340 years old. Hubble has observed it on several occasions to look for changes in the rapidly expanding filaments.

In the latest observing campaign, two sets of images were taken, separated by nine months. Even in that short time, Hubble’s razor-sharp images can observe the expansion of the remnant. Comparison of the two image sets shows that a faint stream of debris seen along the upper left side of the remnant is moving with high speed - up to 32 million kilometers per hour (fast enough to travel from Earth to the Moon in 30 seconds!).

Cas A is located ten thousand light-years away from Earth in the constellation of Cassiopeia. Supernova explosions are the main source of elements more complex than oxygen, which are forged in the extreme conditions produced in these events. The analysis of such a nearby, relatively young and fresh example is extremely helpful in understanding the evolution of the Universe.



The Star of David, Star of Bethlehem, New Star of the Book of Mormon lit the night side of Earth for a whole night as brightly as the Sun. If it was anything like either SN1987A or Cass A then it had to be much closer to have its ultra bright phase light Earth for 8 hours or so as brightly as the Sun. Its light got here 2007 years ago. If it were only 200 light years distant, and its velocity were similar to SN1987A, it is overdue. Debris from this closer Supernova is now dark. We can no longer see it. We have only the records made by humans a long time ago to warn us of it.
Where is the reference that the Star of Bethlehem lit the night sky for 8 hours, or as brightly as the sun? The Star of David is NOT a real star.. it is a seal, a symbol. It is also called the Seal of Solomon. Not an astrological occurrence.

It is named after King David of ancient Israel; and its usage began in the Middle Ages, alongside the more ancient symbol of the menorah. Geometrically it is the hexagram.
With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 the Star of David on the Flag of Israel has also become a symbol of Israel.


The Gospel of Matthew states that "wise men" (Koine Greek magoi, meaning 'astrologer' or 'astronomer') arrived at the court of Herod in Jerusalem and told the king of the star:
“ In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage. When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.[9]

An astronomical object

Because the magi told Herod that they saw the star "at its rising",[29] the obvious conclusion is that of an astronomical object.

In 1614, German astronomer Johannes Kepler determined that a series of three conjunctions of the planets Jupiter and Saturn occurred in the year 6 BC. [30] Although conjunctions were important in astrology, Kepler was not thinking in astrological terms. He argued that a planetary conjunction could create a nova, which he linked to the Star of Bethlehem.[30] Modern calculations show that there was always a large gap between the two planets, so these conjunctions were not visually impressive. An ancient almanac has been found in Babylon which covers the events of this period, but it makes no specific reference to the conjunctions.

Chinese and Korean stargazers observed an object thought to be a nova or a comet around 5 BC.[32] This object was observed for over seventy days with no movement recorded.[32] Ancient writers described comets as "hanging over" specific cities, just as the Star of Bethlehem was said to have "stood over" the "place" where Jesus was (presumably the town of Bethlehem).[33] This phrase was not used to describe other astronomical objects, so perhaps the tail of a comet was thought to point to a specific terrestrial location.

Another Star of Bethlehem candidate is Uranus, which was visible at various times. However, it probably moved too slowly to be recognized as a planet.

Another recent hypothesis states that the star of Bethlehem was a supernova or hypernova occurring in the nearby Andromeda Galaxy. The author notes that a Type Ia or Ic supernova/hypernova occurring in the Andromeda Galaxy would have been visible directly overhead in the town of Bethlehem at the same time of the birth of Jesus. Although supernovae have been detected in Andromeda, it is extremely difficult to detect a supernova remnant in another galaxy, let alone obtain an accurate date of when it occurred.

An astrological event

The use of the phrase "king of the Jews" by the magi has led many writers to link the Star of Bethlehem to astrology. In Hellenistic astrology, Jupiter was the king planet and Regulus was the king star.[36] As they traveled from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, the star "went before" the magi and then "stood over" the place where Jesus was. In astrological interpretations, these phrases are said to refer to retrograde motion and to stationing, i.e. Jupiter appeared to reverse course for a time, then stopped, and finally resumed its normal progression[37] (This assumes that the magi had an instrument equivalent to an astrolabe that allowed them to detect to the motion of a planet between one night and the next.)

In 3-2 BC, there was a series of seven conjunctions, including three between Jupiter and Regulus and a strikingly close conjunction between Jupiter and Venus on June 17, 2 BC.[38] "The fusion of two planets would have been a rare and awe-inspiring event", according to an influential paper by Roger Sinnott.[39]

Astronomer Michael Molnar has proposed a link between a double occultation of Jupiter by the moon in 6 BC in Aries and the Star of Bethlehem.[40] This event was quite close to the sun and would have been difficult to observe, even with a small telescope.[41] Occultations of planets by the moon are quite common, but Firmicus Maternus, an astrologer to Roman Emperor Constantine, wrote that an occultation of Jupiter in Aries was a sign of the birth of a divine king.[42] "When the royal star of Zeus, the planet Jupiter, was in the east this was the most powerful time to confer kingships. Furthermore, the Sun was in Aries where it is exalted. And the Moon was in very close conjunction with Jupiter in Aries", Molnar wrote.[40] This set of conditions reoccurs every sixty years.[40]

A modern and exclusively astrological interpretation of Matthew's account of the star, based on the magi's role as astrologers, "decodes" the Star of Bethlehem as a rare celestial configuration that was visible only to the magi. The "star" was revealed in an astrological chart dated March 2, 5 BCE.

Okay... but what does this have to do with evolution? Or creation? (a completely different subject, abiogenesis is the proper counterpart to creation theory) I am really having a difficult time understanding what you are trying to prove with the your posts. I want to understand, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 3661
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/22/2007 10:39:22 AM
bsofa

Why should I be surprised that we have Anti-Mormons in the group.

I'm not anti-mormon, I simply read the Book of Mormon objectively with an open mind.
Although now that I think of it, that probably makes me anti-mormon.


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is only the fastest growing religion on the face of the planet.

It sure is, why after 180 years its grown to about what...12 million members worldwide? That's something we call...slow growth. And its not even close to the Islamic religion.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam/

Do you have any proofs for creation? Your statements about stars are often misinformed, obscure, and not very compelling.
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 3662
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/22/2007 2:31:47 PM

"In May, 1998, the Chicago Tribune reported that, though difficult to quantify due to lack of formal organization, neo-paganism is the fastest-growing religion in North America with the Internet being the prime means of proselytizing." 1 Ms. Curott estimates a doubling in size every 18 months. This growth rate seems quite high, but appears to have some credibility in the Wiccan community. The ARIS survey of the American adult population indicates a growth in the Wiccan community of 17 fold between 1990 and 2001 - the highest of any faith group monitored. This would indicate a doubling in numbers of adherents about ever 2.5 years. 2

If the latter growth rate is accurate and if it continues, then Wicca (neopagans) would be the third largest religious group in the U.S. by about 2012, behind Christianity and Judaism.


I think Islam is probably the fastest growing of the Judeo-christian religions.

Off topic, but I despise assumptions based on nothing.

As far as the OP, there is so much info that supports evolution that only someone who refuses to see the data would deny it. Being a deist myself I think evolution points to a creator that is elegant and brilliant enough to make everything all work together and actually IMPROVE on the basic structure of life through life's ability to adapt and change to it's environment.. because if you really think about it if all forms were static, they would become extinct in the face of any environmental stress. The ice ages would have been our demise, or the creation of deserts, or any minor fluctuation in our climate. If "creation" is a reflection of the creator then it is a most marvelous thing and also points to the concept that the creator itself is an expanding entity. Truly awe-inspiring.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3664
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/22/2007 7:07:09 PM
Rockondon
What I have been presenting, is to me, proof of creation/ID.

What constitutes proof is a variable.

Yes, I made an error on the year of Cas A. I’m human and often make numerical errors. The data posted by Ravenstar66 confirms the remnant/debris velocity. The velocity figures are even faster than what I calculated from the PopSci published data. I trust the answers I get from computers but only after being certain of the accuracy of the input data.

Paul wrote in 1Thes 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” To my own satisfaction, I have sought to do just that. Concerned that we might have affected the orbit of the Moon by all of out landings and the impacts of the empty fuel tanks and rocket motors used to calibrate the seismic instruments, I took the available published data regarding the moon and proceeded to apply the Newtonian math to the known data. Proving both the Newtonian math and the data. At least to my own satisfaction. The result I attempted to post but when I examined what actually showed up in the post, I found it missing a few lines of code. I checked the original and the lines were there. I can only presume that, with all the advance warning about a possible post of such a program, someone was prepared to prevent it posting accurately. Either to discredit me or to prevent the truth from being so easily obtained. Opposition is essential. If there were no resistance to an oar in the water, how would one paddle a boat? I emailed a complete listing to one person who asked for it. I doubt I can do that for everyone. My suggestion is that everyone should put at least some degree of effort of their own into it. The essence of the program is there, If it can be read and understood, the missing lines may be restored in each individual’s unique way. It is the Newtonian Math I was trying to express in a precise mathematical language. Force of gravity and acceleration are the two basic components It is not just drawing a circle or an ellipse. It is force acting on mass over a distance. Even the time interval between calculations is a variable which the user may alter. The default numbers in the original resulted in a stable model of the orbit of the Moon in two dimensional space with a fixed Earth. Not real world but I don’t know all the other data and my computer it was written on was incapable of making the vast number calculations needed for a 3D real world model. It was adequate to prove to me the validity of the published data and the Newtonian Math. It can do the same for anyone willing to put forth the effort to figure it out. Originally it took hours to run and see meaningful results. On much faster modern computers, it produces results in seconds. The results I wanted to see were with regard to how much change occurred with the supposedly insignificant changes of the empty fuel tanks and engines of the stage which was used to break earth orbit of the Saturn Five rockets. It was left behind as soon as its fuel was exhausted so as to require less fuel to achieve orbital insertion and manuvering around the moon. They provided known mass impacting the moon in known locations at known velocity after the Astronauts were gone. These impacts were said to have made the Moon ring like a bell for over an hour. After we stopped sending men to the Moon, A sisemic event was registered on the equipment which was said to have caused the Moon to ring like a bell for over 4 hours. It was attributed to a meteor impact on the far side of the Moon. It seemed to me that Such an impact would just balance the effect of the multiple impacts, used to calibrate the instruments, which all occurred on the near side of the Moon. All of those we caused would have tended to move the Moon outward into a higher orbit while the one big one would have cancelled or balanced that effect. The instruments were never reported to have detected any additional events of that magnitued. I used double precision math to see how little an impact was required to alter the Moon’s orbit.

Once the Newtonian math is understood and the Gravitational “Sling Shot” assist is understood, the phenomenal velocity of the remnants / debris from exploded stars becomes relevant. The portion of the debris from the three mentioned supernovae have nothing between them and the solar system to either block or decelerate it. No, not even the combined gravity of the Galaxy. The velocity is over 10 times the average star velocity which keeps the stars in their courses. I have posted an ID method by which such debris might be assembled, decelerated, and parked in orbits such as we see. The math says it won’t happen by accident. I am not trying to claim that all supernovae have such residual velocities. I’m only interpreting the existing observational data. The same data which others use to support Evolution. The difference is that the Old evolution and accretion theories leave out the newly observed phenomenal relative velocity of Supernova debris. They generally refer to velocities which are more like hurricanes and tornados in Earth’s atmosphere. Even the much fiercer observed weather on Jupiter is dwarfed by the Phenomenal interstellar weather these observations forewarn us of. I am not talking If such debris will ever pass through the system, I’m reiterating the Scriptural Prophecy that has been there warning us for millennia. It is not a matter of IF but a matter of WHEN.

We have been progressing toward space exploration and rapid Technological Advance. I am encouraging that Technological Advance and even attempting to spur it on to greater speed. We need millions of people and ships with all the necessary technology to do mining operations in ultra cold of interstellar space, speed to get there, Computers that can do the necessary calculations for trajectories needed, The task seems insurmountable but so do many of the things we have done from the perspective of 2000 years ago.

Those who take the time and effort needed to check out for themselves, can find out what I learned playing with the input numbers to the Moon Orbit Model Program. Do the math for yourself and find out just how precarious orbits are. The fact that they can be stable for Billions of years with impacts and volcanic eruptions going on is miraculous.

How can I tell people who can’t understand the math how important velocity and direction are to orbital insertion and stability? I’m asked what all the star data has to do with creation and I wonder: How can they not see it? How can others not see what I see about the precarious orbit of Earth in the life supporting liquid water zone around the Sun? What might the impact of high velocity debris from a nearby supernova do to the temperature of our Sun? How precarious is this lifezone orbit we have apparently enjoyed for all these evolutionary millions of years?

There are some major flaws in the theory of Evolution. The biggest is the length of time the Earth would have had to remain stable without any mass extinction events. The next biggest, in my opinion is the variableness of radioactive decay rates. Sure, in laboratory controlled conditions the decay rate is consistant. But it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that nuclear reactors can cut the millions of years at which U235 decays down to a mere 20 years. How can evolutionists hold to such a far fetched notion as being able to tell the age of the earth by the amount of radioactive isotopes in a tiny sample which they have absolutely no record of the conditions it has been in. Tree rings I can believe. One can even discern the weather conditions from them and link from one tree to another. Pollen counts in ice layers of compression and thermal surface melt layers are another story. To me, trying to tell how old an ice layer is in a sample is like trying to tell how deep the snow was last month by measuring what is there today. There have been days when I’ve felt the invisible CO2 increase due to a forest fire in a neighbor State. We don’t keep records of that kind of thing so how can we accurately interpret what we find in the Ice core samples?

The same observational evidence which is used to support Evolution also supports Creation. The difference is in what variables are taken into account in what order and significance. One scientist may interpret an increased CO2 percentage in an ice core sample as indicative of a global CO2 level for a hundred years. Another may interpret it as indicative of a forest fire and single hard winter with unusual storm activity or the eruption of a volcano like Krakatoa. Who is right? Why the Professor with the most tenure would be my bet.

Ravenstar66
Good points. Growth rates can be very deceiving. Like statistics it is a matter of what sample you take where. The relevance is in the relation to what I've just posted regarding ice core samples and CO2 density. Who is keeping the records? Where and how are they taking samples? How many samples from how wide an area? Etc. Etc. Etc...

It is all a matter of Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How.

Happy Hanukah
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 3665
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2007 11:23:24 AM
bsofa

There are some major flaws in the theory of Evolution. The biggest is the length of time the Earth would have had to remain stable without any mass extinction events.

Have you met my friend Rex? He's my pet T-Rex.

The next biggest, in my opinion is the variableness of radioactive decay rates. Sure, in laboratory controlled conditions the decay rate is consistant. But it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that nuclear reactors can cut the millions of years at which U235 decays down to a mere 20 years.

Despite the threat of ancient man and dinosaurs altering decay rates with their prehistoric nuclear reactors, there are many many ways of determining ages and they are always used to test each other.
In one of his past posts, bright1raziel mentioned what methods he uses to date things. These are just the few methods he uses during his research, there are hundreds of others:

Cation Ratio
Cultural Affiliation
Fluorine Dating
Obsidian Hydration
Patination
Pollen Analysis
Rate of Accumulation
SeriationVarve Analysis
Archaeomagnetism
Astronomical Dating
Dendrochronology
Electron Spin Resonance
Fission Track
Optically Stimulated Luminescence
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR)
Potassium- Argon Dating
Racemization
Radio-Carbon Dating (Carbon-14)
RadioCarbon Isotope Dating
Thermoluminescence Dating
Uranium-Thorium Dating

Each result from each method tests the rest. So when things are aged many different ways and the results agree with each other, those results are extremely reliable.


The same observational evidence which is used to support Evolution also supports Creation.

Can you provide an example please? Please note that I didn't ask for long-winded rhetoric or a changing of the subject or a long painful journey that we need degrees in astrophysics to understand. I asked for an example of observational evidence that supports both evolution and creation that will support your statement. The way you worded it makes it sound like all observational evidence that supports evolution supports creation, but I'll settle for just one example.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 3666
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/23/2007 12:24:06 PM
bright1raziel

For example, if there is no greater force, then where did our altruism come from? We can be altruistic to species that are in competion with us, showing that it overrides our genetic imperative. How could such a behaviour come about without some form of guidance?

~In an individual setting altruism would likely be a hindrance to survival but in a social setting altruistic interactions would be beneficial. Traits need not be adaptive 100% of the time or in all situations to be adaptive.
~Reputation gains are a benefit.
~Reciprocated altruism is often expected, and so is punishment to those who don't reciprocate. (especially true in the bedroom )


What about our apreation of art?

~ Art is creative and creativity has evolutionary advantages - making weapons, tools, etc.
~Traits that provide evolutionary advantages (such as creativity) often provide other attributes that may or may not be an evolutionary advantage. A structure that provides a risk-reducing cognitive function may provide other incidental functions.
~ Chicks like artists.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3667
view profile
History
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/24/2007 7:15:52 AM
rockondon



there are many many ways of determining ages and they are always used to test each other.


All of the examples you cite are subject to interpretation. When we enroll in a college course, we need to please the teacher in order to get a good grade we are therefore choosing to be what the teacher is. The teacher or professor is helping us mold our perception into his or her pattern. He or she has previously molded his or her perception to be liked by or at least accepted by those who taught him or her.
If the younger teacher doesn't please the tenured professor He or she loses his or her job.

Here are a few examples from your own posted list.


Cation ratio dating is used to date rocks that have a modified surface such as prehistoric rock carvings (petroglyphs). This is a relative dating technique and is not considered to be an accurate method of dating in some professional views.

The professor with tenure gets to create the results.
Rocks are covered by a kind of varnish, a chemically-changed layer caused by weathering that builds up over time. The change in the rock varnish is due to calcium and potassium seeping out of the rock. The cation ratio is determined by scraping the varnish from the carved or petroglyph surface back to the original rock surface and making a comparison of the two using a positively charged ion. Like dendrochronology, this ratio is affected by soil and moisture. Thus, a leaching curve is created by geographical area.

Cultural Affiliation dating is complex. There is no one way to go about using this technique. If a community of people uses Cultural Affiliation to gauge its history, they might be differently attached to a place, body, or artifact. In addition to this, sometimes there are different levels of Cultural Affiliation. Debates are also made as to which kind of Cultural Affiliation is the best.
The professor with tenure expects certain results he grades on the proximity to his expectation and so creates the results.

The different levels of Cultural Affiliation are known as temporal levels. Native peoples of the Southwest have a few different types of these levels. The first type is the Mythic Period, which was the time before the creation of fully formed humans, and even has some continuation into the present. The next type is the Traditional Period. This Affiliation has fully formed humans living where they are now. Historic Period Affiliation follows, and began when the first European person, animal, tool, grain, or disease arrived. Next is the Aboriginal Period. This is defined by the U.S. Indian Claims Commission as when Indian ethnic groups lost their land to the U.S. federal government. And the last is the Contemporary Period, which is where Indian peoples are living today.
Debates about the uses of Cultural Affiliation have come about in the last few decades. One of the first debates was trying to decide whether Native American origin stories, or scientifically known migrations are more accurate. Particular language groups are studied to see how a certain group of people has moved from place to place. The same goes with ethnography and archaeology, which both take similar cultural traits and material culture and use the information to determine the movement of a people. One of the newer methods, physical anthropology, takes DNA patterns and looks for similarities of groups to determine movement.




Fluorine is an element that is found in most ground water around the world. It can be used as a relative dating technique.
Skeletal remains buried in the earth are subject to a wide range of chemical changes. One of these changes can occur when percolating ground water comes into contact with the remains. The ground water inundates the bone remains with a solution of minerals drawn from local soils. This can cause a change in the mineral composition of the bone. Hydroxyl ions are displaced with a form of soluble fluorides. These ions form fluorapatite which is markedly less soluble. Over time, more and more fluorides are accumulated. The rate varies depending on the specific condition in the soil of the area and increases with age.
Fluorine dating is chiefly of value in determining whether bone implements or human skeletal remains found in association with other bones were buried at the same time. It was fluorine dating that was instrumental in the debunking of Piltdown Man. The Piltdown controversy lasted until 1949 when the Piltdown skull and jawbone were subjected to fluorine testing. The levels of fluorine in the skull and jawbone were significantly lower then in other bone specimens collected from the same area. After further testing the jawbone and a canine tooth proved to contain no more fluorine than fresh bones and teeth. The skull contained enough fluorine to indicate that it was not modern.

Varies greatly with location cannot be used to check results of other dating methods only to show two bones buried in the same location were buried at the same time.




Each result from each method tests the rest. So when things are aged many different ways and the results agree with each other, those results are extremely reliable.


According to the professor with tenure that defines the results but not according to other experts in related fields.


Can you provide an example please? Please note that I didn't ask for long-winded rhetoric or a changing of the subject or a long painful journey that we need degrees in astrophysics to understand. I asked for an example of observational evidence that supports both evolution and creation that will support your statement. The way you worded it makes it sound like all observational evidence that supports evolution supports creation, but I'll settle for just one example.

I have given examples but since they are already “known” to you as supporting evolution you are refusing to see that they support creation. I repeat: it depends on what each individual will accept as proof.

Everything is example of both. Those who believe in evolution interpret everything as supporting evolution. Those who believe in creation/id interpret everything as supporting creation.

I am a member of the latter group and the basic premise is that we think therefore we are. As offspring of God, we are endowed with the power of creation. Everything we observe is created as we observe it. We recreate it in our minds. It is all just interpretation of the energy impinging on our skin, tongue, Nasal membranes, eardrums, or retinas which in turn represent it in electrical signals to our brains. Our brains then interpret it according to their own predefined methods.

As long as you want to be an evolutionist, everything you look at will support evolution. As long as I want to be a creationist, everything will support creation.
Thus it is and thus it must remain. It is a matter of choice.
Happy New Year
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  >