Cosmology

[sjastro]

Another example of our resident polymath shortcomings is his inability to count.
He used the example of deuterium in this link to "prove" the three body problem involving electromagnetic forces is stable because deuterium is composed of an electron, proton and neutron, 1+1+1=3.
Ignoring the circular argument and synchrotron radiation kills off orbits what he didn't take into account is that the proton and neutron are bound by the strong force and therefore with respect to the electromagnetic force this a two body problem.

On a different subject the link illustrates the average binding energy per nucleon for atomic nuclei which is shown in greater detail below.

This curve shows the remarkable connection between experimental nuclear physics and the mechanism behind typeII supernova explosions.
In the curve the average binding energy per nucleon drops for atomic numbers greater than iron (Fe).
This means there is no excess energy produced when iron nuclei are fused.
It's no coincidence that stars that are massive enough to have iron in their cores explode as their is no longer any excess energy to oppose the gravitational collapse of the core.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

Am I to understand that you do not know what a non sequitur is?

So you change the subject? It is a confession of your mistake of having tried to refute something that can not be refuted because it is a system that is used to analyze reality.

 

[tas8831]

So you change the subject?

Not at all - you?

It is a confession of your mistake of having tried to refute something that can not be refuted because it is a system that is used to analyze reality.

Wow - you seem to be confabulating ... badly.

I did not try to refute anything, I merely commented on the lack of logical foundation for your claim and you flew off on this bizarre rant.

Let us review your fall into this pit, shall we?

It all started when you made this bizarre assertion, emphasis mine:

Evolution is a phenomenon that generates increasingly complex information information, so it is a creative phenomenon. But if everything comes from the creation of new information, it means that the creation exists and therefore God has indeed created the world.​

I commented:

I took a class titled "Argumentation" when I was an undergrad. We learned about logical fallacies, burden of proof, all that sort of thing.

And if I had turned in an assignment that was such a blatant non sequitur, built on totally unsupported premises, I would almost certainly have been given no credit.​

And it went downhill from there - you kept blabbing on like so:

What is wrong with you?

It is only a cosmological model that I have constructed and not an argumentation.
You should also take philosophy classes, you will learn that everything is not necessarily an affirmation.​

...apparently not aware that I had only commented on the unsupported silliness of your non sequitur, which you do not seem to understand.

Let me break it down for you:

Here is what the Google tells us:

non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun

1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Origin
Latin, literally ‘it does not follow.’​

Here is what I was responding to (just for clarity) - the part that does not follow is in blue, the part that it supposedly follows from is in red

​

Evolution is a phenomenon that generates increasingly complex information information, so it is a creative phenomenon. But if everything comes from the creation of new information, it means that the creation exists and therefore God has indeed created the world.
​

Get it now? "Cosmological model" or no, it is not logical - it is fallacious.

Here is an example of something that DOES make sense:

Internet creationists most often lack a relevant science background or education. Thus, when they discuss things like biological evolution, their claims are generally nonsensical.​

You see? It logically follows that a person lacking a relevant understanding of a topic will make nonsensical claims about that topic, yes?

To rephrase slightly, here is an example of a non sequitur:

Everything comes from the creation of new information, thus, the creation exists and therefore God has indeed created the world.​

This:

"the creation exists and therefore God has indeed created the world"

DOES NOT FOLLOW from this:

"Everything comes from the creation of new information"

For at least the following reasons:

"Everything comes from the creation of new information" is an unsupported assertion;


"Everything comes from the creation of new information" does NOT mean that "the creation exists";

And even if it were agreed that the universe WAS "created", there is no relevant evidence that would mean that "therefore God has indeed created the world".

Your "model" is merely a series of unsupported assertions strung together in an attempt to justify creationist beliefs.

Sorry.

Bye.

 

[tas8831]

delete

 

[tas8831]

The only individual that is being dishonest here or perhaps has the memory of a goldfish is your need to regurgitate an old post from another thread which was refuted.

So he does this re: physics/cosmology, too, I see - he does this in evolutionary biology discussions as well.

 

[tas8831]

When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own.

Add plagiarism to your list of pathetic antics.

Which is why your post contained not one scientific rebuttal to the science I presented.

Is this your way of acknowledging why you can never provide actual evidence supporting your dopey 'Asian+African=Afro-Asian, therefore, Jesus"?

 

[tas8831]

Even the mildly interesting link to the page on charged particles in a magnetic field goes on to explain the evolution of a spiral trajectory (not circular). So yet again, Justatruthseeker's quote mining and selective blindness serves to again undermine his own argument!

He has done the same on the evolution forum - quoted a paper to try to support his claim that alleles are not produced via mutation, yet later in that very paper, the authors explained that the new alleles were indeed produced via mutation.

His antic is to simply re-paste the same quote over and over and over, pretending that his own source did not actually refute his position.

One has to wonder what people like justa think they are accomplishing - can they really think that they are 'winning' somehow?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Michael is no longer a problem.
The only justification in dealing with the likes of these individuals is to counter the misinformation and straight out lies that some of the public not sufficiently educated might take seriously.

Michael is not around for a very specific reason, lesliedellow .. we didn't give up on him.
Cheers

I don’t plan on giving up on all of you either.....

One day you may just decide to stop ignoring 99.9% of the universe and having the need to invent 95% of it to make up for what you ignored.

A long shot to be sure. Especially when people admit they don’t know what makes up 95% of the universe but are positive they are correct about it anyways.....

Those psychosis runs deep, but perhaps you all can still break free. It remains to be seen.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

He has done the same on the evolution forum - quoted a paper to try to support his claim that alleles are not produced via mutation, yet later in that very paper, the authors explained that the new alleles were indeed produced via mutation.

His antic is to simply re-paste the same quote over and over and over, pretending that his own source did not actually refute his position.

One has to wonder what people like justa think they are accomplishing - can they really think that they are 'winning' somehow?

No they didn’t.

I’m still waiting for you to justify your claim that “mutations are two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations.”

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

Not at all - you?
Wow - you seem to be confabulating ... badly.

I did not try to refute anything, I merely commented on the lack of logical foundation for your claim and you flew off on this bizarre rant.

Let us review your fall into this pit, shall we?

It all started when you made this bizarre assertion, emphasis mine:

Evolution is a phenomenon that generates increasingly complex information information, so it is a creative phenomenon. But if everything comes from the creation of new information, it means that the creation exists and therefore God has indeed created the world.​

I commented:

I took a class titled "Argumentation" when I was an undergrad. We learned about logical fallacies, burden of proof, all that sort of thing.

And if I had turned in an assignment that was such a blatant non sequitur, built on totally unsupported premises, I would almost certainly have been given no credit.​

And it went downhill from there - you kept blabbing on like so:

What is wrong with you?

It is only a cosmological model that I have constructed and not an argumentation.
You should also take philosophy classes, you will learn that everything is not necessarily an affirmation.​

...apparently not aware that I had only commented on the unsupported silliness of your non sequitur, which you do not seem to understand.

Let me break it down for you:

Here is what the Google tells us:

non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun

1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Origin
Latin, literally ‘it does not follow.’​

Here is what I was responding to (just for clarity) - the part that does not follow is in blue, the part that it supposedly follows from is in red

Evolution is a phenomenon that generates increasingly complex information information, so it is a creative phenomenon. But if everything comes from the creation of new information, it means that the creation exists and therefore God has indeed created the world.
​

Get it now? "Cosmological model" or no, it is not logical - it is fallacious.

Here is an example of something that DOES make sense:

Internet creationists most often lack a relevant science background or education. Thus, when they discuss things like biological evolution, their claims are generally nonsensical.​

You see? It logically follows that a person lacking a relevant understanding of a topic will make nonsensical claims about that topic, yes?

To rephrase slightly, here is an example of a non sequitur:

Everything comes from the creation of new information, thus, the creation exists and therefore God has indeed created the world.​

This:

"the creation exists and therefore God has indeed created the world"

DOES NOT FOLLOW from this:

"Everything comes from the creation of new information"

For at least the following reasons:

"Everything comes from the creation of new information" is an unsupported assertion;


"Everything comes from the creation of new information" does NOT mean that "the creation exists";

And even if it were agreed that the universe WAS "created", there is no relevant evidence that would mean that "therefore God has indeed created the world".

Your "model" is merely a series of unsupported assertions strung together in an attempt to justify creationist beliefs.

Sorry.

Bye.

You have never taken the courses you claim. You do not even know what a cosmological model is. God exists in the cosmological model not outside of it. It's really a pitiful answer from you.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

I took a class titled "Argumentation" when I was an undergrad. We learned about logical fallacies, burden of proof, all that sort of thing

It's pretty easy to recognize someone who claims to be a philosophy specialist but is not. One of the clues, he supports his assertions with arguments of authorities by quoting himself.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's pretty easy to recognize someone who claims to be a philosophy specialist but is not. One of the clues, he supports his assertions with arguments of authorities by quoting himself.

The main example of pseudoscience is ad hominem attacks. When the best they can do is attack the poster while being unable to show anything, that’s a clear sign of non comprehension. Tas and the others would have no posts if they had to actually debate the science, since 95% of their cosmology isn’t science.... so they resort to ad hominem attacks to inflate their ego’s and make themselves feel important.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

The main example of pseudoscience is ad hominem attacks. When the best they can do is attack the poster while being unable to show anything, that’s a clear sign of non comprehension. Tas and the others would have no posts if they had to actually debate the science, since 95% of their cosmology isn’t science.... so they resort to ad hominem attacks to inflate their ego’s and make themselves feel important.

I do not usually discuss topics that I do not know. Then I will not pronounce myself. But the user in question is clearly not up to what he claims.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I do not usually discuss topics that I do not know. Then I will not pronounce myself. But the user in question is clearly not up to what he claims.

Oh I know, that has been evident to me for several years now.... but that’s why he attacked you and not the subject of your post. He isn’t up to it....

 

[tas8831]

It's pretty easy to recognize someone who claims to be a philosophy specialist but is not. One of the clues, he supports his assertions with arguments of authorities by quoting himself.

It is even easier to see someone misrepresent someone else because they cannot stand to be exposed as a phony.

 

[tas8831]

I do not usually discuss topics that I do not know. Then I will not pronounce myself. But the user in question is clearly not up to what he claims.

What did I claim again?

That you do not understand what "non sequitur" means? I pretty much proved that.

Further, I never claimed to be an expert in philosophy - so stop your lies, please - I merely mentioned that I took a class on Argumentation in which fallacies were discussed.

You people are such children.

 

[tas8831]

You have never taken the courses you claim.

1. I claimed to have taken a single class, which I did.

You do not even know what a cosmological model is.

2. Claiming God exists and created the universe because evolution increases information is not a model, cosmological or otherwise.

sorry.

God exists in the cosmological model not outside of it. It's really a pitiful answer from you.

3. Your non sequitur fallacy is hilarious - and pretty sad.

 

[tas8831]

He has done the same on the evolution forum - quoted a paper to try to support his claim that alleles are not produced via mutation, yet later in that very paper, the authors explained that the new alleles were indeed produced via mutation.

No they didn’t.

Yes, they really did. Your sad trolling is legendary, but you have been outed over and over:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."


Help with a genetics claim...

Help with a genetics claim...

Genesis Genetics, revisited

Asking for interpretations of this cladogram

I’m still waiting for you to justify your claim that “mutations are two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations.”

As I never made such a claim, you are yet again exposed as a desperate and pathetic misrepresenter (aka liar).

Classic trait of a poseur/hack/Dunning-Krugerite/pseudoscience-troll - lie about and misrepresent your opponents and your past performances.

I hope your new pal sees you for what you are.

Then, Dunning-Krugerites are apparently birds of a feather.

EDIT: Don't want to drag this thread off topic any more, I am gone.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Many of us are well versed theologically, but none of us knows the current view of astronomy/physics on the origins of the universe and of the world.

I am a bit late to this thread so that Wikipedia exists has probably been given to you already, Northbrook.
Big Bang. Lambda-CDM model. Nebular hypothesis (origin of the Solar System).
A useful Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology.

The current view of astronomy/physics on the origins of the universe is that we do not know because our current physics breaks down. It is very likely that we cannot know because the inflationary period will hide evidence of any origin (the universe need not begin at t = 0).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Personally for me, the best piece of Cosmological evidence that the Bible is true are....

The Orion and Pleiades Star Clusters

That is not correct, Jason0047. Basically everyone in the world has names for the stars. All that shows is that people named stars and constellations.

Hebrew astronomy, Orion, and Pleiades, Aldebaran, Arcturus, Sirius.
These are constellations named by the Greeks. The Biblical authors could have borrowed the Greek constellations. The translators of the Bible may have assigned the Greek constellations that they knew to some Hebrew constellations and maybe the match is good or maybe it is not. What the naming of the constellations says is that the authors of the Bible wrote names for constellations.
The Hebrew "fool" constellation had a "rope" that matches Orion's belt. The rest of the Hebrew constellation is unknown. The Hebrew "Pleiades" could be actually the Greek Pleiades or maybe other bright stars.

Rhetorical questions do not give astronomical facts. There is no "Orion star cluster" so a cluster drifting apart is wrong. We do not know whether the Hebrew "Pleiades" is the Pleiades star cluster.