Astronomical evolution anyone?

[LewisWildermuth]

I think here Paul is talking about spiritual gifts. By your context we should test God until we find that He is 'good'. What model shows that to be possible?

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22Avoid every kind of evil.

When did I say test God? Did not Jesus and Moses warn against asking God to do tricks for us?

But the literal reading of the Bible and the ideas about creation are not God, they are works of men. If I can test spirits, surely I can test the ideas of men without insulting God.


I find it interesting that everyday here and in other places creationists ask TE's to test their theories in science and test their ideas about scripture and the meaning of things like Adam, the fall, the flood, you name it. However, when asked in return to test their ideas about scripture and science they scream that we are denying and testing God. As if their ideas were Gods and thus above question.

I feel if I am given permission to test spirits and prophets, heck even Thomas tested the wounds of Jesus and was allowed to do so, then it is also my right to test the ideas of men and to toss what is not good and hold onto what is good.

 

[KerrMetric]

There are a number of interesting problems with old universe celestial mechanics.

This is one of those "eyeballing" problems. That is, the sun is big, so people assume it must be old.

Covention admits that it just doesn't have a clear picture about how planets and stars formed. Period.

Any number of anamolies exist that cannot be explained with certainty. Why do short period comets still exist? How is the 11 inch per year recession of the moon accounted for in such an old solar system? Why do some planets have magnetic fields and others none? How does Jupiter have an 11 hour day? Why aren't Saturns rings dirty from millenia of dust? How is the angular momentum of the various planets so radically given their allegedly common nebular birth? Neptune is turned 90 degress on its axis of revolution, yet it has a nearly perfectly circular orbit -- how is that possible?

Let me translate:

How many facts can you get wrong in a single post? Many it seems.

 

[KerrMetric]

Or the fact that Uranus's axis is tilted 90 degrees. The only explanation is that an asteroid hit it and caused it to tilt, but it still has one of the most circular orbits in the solar system.

Not a problem if you understand anything about the dynamics of collisions and the role of angular momentum.

 

[KerrMetric]

I've done some research for you on the subject on NASA's website.



Uranus's orbital eccentricity: .047168
Mars: .0934
Jupiter: .04839
Saturn: .0541506
Neptune: .00859
Earth:

0.01671022
Venus: .0068
Mercury: 0.20563069

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Uranus&Display=Facts

Compared to the rest of the planets it doesn't seem like Uranus was hit hard enough to knock it completely sideways.

You are performing a meaningless comparison and making a flawed inference from that.

 

[KerrMetric]

Deamiter - This is true. There is the slight possibility that it could have been hit at exactly the right place and kept its orbit close to those of the rest of the planets, but that doesn't account for the fact that its orbit lies closer within the elliptical plane than every planet other than Earth. The angle you suggest would have knocked it closer to Pluto's orbital plane.
.

Just not true. You are also neglecting a fundamental issue with the origin of the orbit of Uranus and its axial tilt.

Guess what the issue is?

 

[KerrMetric]

The Giant Impact Theory is just that, a theory; with just as many questions as it provides answers. If the moon had crashed into the Earth it would have had to have been 4.5 billion years ago (which is how old it's claimed to be). We see from volcanic activity under the moon's crust (Transient Lunar Phenomena) that it can't possibly be that old. It would have cooled by now.

It has cooled. There is not a single case of lunar vulcanism known. TLP's are pretty much considered observational error. Even if any are valid observations they are in accord with a outgassing/impact events NOT volcanic activity. I should also add that outgassing has severe problems of its own i.e. it would be observable for long after the event and this seems to have never occurred.

 

[Mallon]

Kerr, after you insult people and tell them that they are wrong, it usually helps if you explain WHY afterwards.

 

[KerrMetric]

Kerr, after you insult people and tell them that they are wrong, it usually helps if you explain WHY afterwards.

Please point to an insult?

 

[Mallon]

Please point to an insult?

I see "How many facts can you get wrong in a single post?" as being a veiled insult. Every time you imply someone is foolish without explaining why is insulting.
It's like mark's constant veiled implications that evolutionary creationists are just "Darwinian atheists" in disguise.

 

[KerrMetric]

It wasn't an insult it was an observation.

He got the lunar recession wrong. He got the planet with an axial tilt wrong. He got the current status of stellar formation wrong. He claimed things were not "explainable" that have been explainable for years if not decades.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Honestly, I hadn't meant for the axial tilt of Uranus to become such a hot topic. Lewis accused me of not having any credible information so I quickly took some facts from NASA's site to show that he wasn't making them up. I will accept that Uranus's tilt could have an explanation that I just am not getting.

I have two questions for you Kerr. Both purely inquisitive.

1. How exactly does angular momentum play such a key role in collisions?
2. Where do you teach?

 

[KerrMetric]

1. How exactly does angular momentum play such a key role in collisions?

How could it not? When you play pool and hit the cue ball with english (side for non-Americans) does it not change the way the balls react compared to hitting the cue ball straight on? Angular momentum plays a key role in the stability of objects to being whacked.

Think about gyroscopes? Why are they so stable?

When people say that Uranus if it was hit to cause the axial tilt and that would somehow perturb it's orbit into an eccentric one they are talking poppycock.

Point 1) - Uranus's orbital angular momentum compared to a smaller body (and you don't need it to be a similar sized body to flip it over) is huge. It's orbit would hardly be affected at all even if the collision was perpendicular to the orbital path.

Point 2) The collision could well have happened before Uranus was in its present location. In fact - it is known that the gas giant planets (especially the two smaller ones Uranus and Neptune) did not form where they currently are. They migrated to their current positions. And before people cry "how do you know this" - there is evidence that this did occur - both theoretically and observationally.

2. Where do you teach?

Caltech.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Caltech, very impressive. Not that I would have taken you any more or less serious as a result, but it still is impressive.

Thank you for the physics lesson. I do have another question. Is this idea that both Neptune and Uranus migrated to their current locations why the nebula theory doesn't predict them to be there?
For future reference most of these questions come purely from ignorance and are in no way condescending.

 

[KerrMetric]

Is this idea that both Neptune and Uranus migrated to their current locations why the nebula theory doesn't predict them to be there?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here but I'll take a stab at your intent.
Uranus and Neptune could not have formed at their current locations according to the computer modelling of the nebular model. This also is indicated by the current locations of the Kuiper Belt objects (KBO's) and the resonances between the planets and the KBO's. The presence and numbers of asteroids at the Lagrangian points of the orbits also supports the migration hypothesis.

 

[busterdog]

I see "How many facts can you get wrong in a single post?" as being a veiled insult. Every time you imply someone is foolish without explaining why is insulting.
It's like mark's constant veiled implications that evolutionary creationists are just "Darwinian atheists" in disguise.

Thank you.

Talkorigins does not contest the lunar recesion, but says it might involve eccentriicites in the orbit of the moon. Neither the creationist sources nor the talkorigins sources are particularly clear on whether this recession is uniform for the entire orbit or whether a portion of an eccentric orbit is in recession.

As for collisions between celestial bodies to explain problems in celestial orbits, this is asteriod-did-it. Yeah, anything could be remotely possible, but the notion of collisions to explain anomolies is an emphasis on the improbable nature of the nebular hypothesis.

I think one of the essential comparisons is between claims of things like vulcanism on small bodies that should have cooled long ago. This is a YEC argument for why the universe is young. Frankly, I am not comfortable with these items as proof-positive of anything. Though I would say that they do compare well with the very speculative argument that all these anamolies are explainable as the results of collisions with asteroids or other bodies. We are relying on long-shots because we just don't know. Not that it isn't interesting to model and speculate.

 

[KerrMetric]

Talkorigins does not contest the lunar recesion, but says it might involve eccentriicites in the orbit of the moon. Neither the creationist sources nor the talkorigins sources are particularly clear on whether this recession is uniform for the entire orbit or whether a portion of an eccentric orbit is in recession.

What????????

That makes no sense and I suggest you read the argument closer.

As for collisions between celestial bodies to explain problems in celestial orbits, this is asteriod-did-it. Yeah, anything could be remotely possible, but the notion of collisions to explain anomolies is an emphasis on the improbable nature of the nebular hypothesis.

Two points:

Collisions were not "remotely" possible - they were quite likely.

How does this make the nebular hypothesis improbable anyway? In fact - it's hard to see how the nebular hypothesis is anything but a certainty.

I think one of the essential comparisons is between claims of things like vulcanism on small bodies that should have cooled long ago. This is a YEC argument for why the universe is young.

What vulcanism? Outside of Io (which is to be expected due to its location) please give me another vulcanism instance on a small body?

Triton and Enceladus are not examples of vulcanism in the understood sense of the word.

 

[busterdog]

What vulcanism? Outside of Io (which is to be expected due to its location) please give me another vulcanism instance on a small body?

Triton and Enceladus are not examples of vulcanism in the understood sense of the word.

Geologically active will do.

 

[KerrMetric]

Geologically active will do.

No it most definitely will not do.

There is no small body in the solar system still with an internal heat source present from its formation. Nada, none, zilch.

Whether Io, Triton or Enceladus - none of these are examples where you can claim the activity is caused by the object being young and the heat from its formation being responsible.