Earth

[worship4ever]

First of all, anyone still trying to figure out the message of Duane Morse
thread named "dig a deep hole" lol. That one is going to have to take a few more read over's, lol.

But to my orginal point: Everyone knows the sun makes up 99.85% of all the mass in our solar system. The sun is primarily made up of Hydrogen and Helium. If you take the closest planets near the sun you would get mercury, venus, earth, and mars. Now earth is 149,600,000 km miles from the sun, inches compared to the vastness of other planets and the entire universe in general. One would expect that these planets (earth included) would be made up of sum of the same composition as the sun, which to remind you is 99.85% of all the mass in our solar system. Yet, the earth has every know resource, almost every know element ever discovered, yet oddly enough only half of one percent of these nearby planets have hydrogen and helium. The earth's hydrogen and helium fails to compare to the other elements we find on earth http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/elabund.html
The earth, and surrounding planets, should have some of the same compostion has the sun, considering it's size, mass, and content of the sun. Likewise, the moon is too dissimliar to the earth, and vis vera. The earth has everything needed to handle man kind, i say for mankind, b.c fish, mammals, insects, ect, do not need these elements like man needs them. Everything on earth is given to us in great abundance, and still doesnt even come close to having the same composition as the sun.

To futher the aurgument, each planet and sun should orbit in the same direction (Law of Angular Momentum). Yet we find that 2 planets ( Venus, Uranus, and Pluto) and 6 moons orbit backward's from there celestial body body. This flies in the face of Centripetal Force, yet it still happens. If the sun is rotating clockwise, so should there orbiting
celestial bodies.

This website is a great site about the population of the earth. The increase of population on earth and how it relates to millions of years and evolution, if that were true. Read the formula used, its a good one.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-021.htm

The earth has about 60 things that must happen for life to even be possible for humans. All these things are perfectly inline. Evolutionist like to say, it was awesome luck that we only have one moon, the distance from the moon and sun are important, the thickness of the earth's crust, the percentage of gases in the air, the magentic field of the earth, and so on and so far. It's painfully obviously that intelligent design was at work, everything seems to be perfect, does it not. But yea, evolutionist, i can only win the lottery a million times, a million times in a row too. The odd's of the big bang, evolution, first cell, DNA, animo acids in protein forming are near impossible. Evolutionist need eternity on there side, they dont.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-014.htm

http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/icrimpacts/014.html

 

[Arikay]

Ill get to all the other stuff later (if someone else doesnt point out the problems).

But I have one question. Why do you keep saying that the Odds are near impossible, when it was shown that your "odds" were flawed?

 

[ukok]

i came in here expecting something i could understand, but you lost me. What exactly, briefly, is the point of your original post. Don't mean to sound negative, just need some simple talk clarification. Please.

 

[Cantuar]

But I have one question. Why do you keep saying that the Odds are near impossible, when it was shown that your "odds" were flawed?

Because that's what his sources at the creationist ministries are saying, and he considers those sources more reliable than science and maths textbooks.

A basic textbook on astronomy would explain why retrograde orbits and retrograde rotation are perfectly well accommodated in the theory of orbits, but it's much more satisfying for creationists to read the creationist ministry websites telling them that astronomers are as deluded about their speciality as biologists are.

 

[Cantuar]

The earth has about 60 things that must happen for life to even be possible for humans. All these things are perfectly inline.

Then I trust we'll never hear you claiming that the speed of light was different back then or that radioactive decay occurred at a different rate back then, or any other tinkering with the universe's fundamental constants that creationists are so keen on trotting out in between the times when they're extolling the virtues of the strong anthropic principle.

 

[worship4ever]

Cantar, you claimed that creationist get different numbers than science or math textbooks. You would have to assume that everyone was using different experiment. Creationist has never gone outside the limits of an experiment by an evolutionist or whatnot. A creationist isnt going to make up data to verify their claim, and if you stopped saying "no, it aint true" all the time you'd see that. Look at some of the numbers, they corralate exactly to science. Creationist are unfortanatly on the defense when it comes to science. Science text books have flaws. When the answer in says "I don't know". Creationist say "God did it", and yet there's still evidence showed for intelligent design. When you see the earth being in "EXACTLY" the right way you'd understand that chance didn't do it, yet an intelligent designer

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/entrance.htm

Great site speaking of odds
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Another great site about evolution
http://www.freegift77.com/evolutio.htm

The bear bottom line fact is that sciencist believe in theories (yes, theory based on intelligent scientific experiments, but still a theory notheless) and at least creationist have science AND an awesome book on our side, its 2 against 1 folks.

 

[Arikay]

Never say Never

"Creationist has never gone outside the limits of an experiment by an evolutionist or whatnot."

Yes they have. Many creationist groups like to use the K/Ar dating of 50 year old Lava rock to try and disprove K/Ar.
Unfortunatly they used it outside their limits.

"A creationist isnt going to make up data to verify their claim"

I currently cant remember an incident of completly made up data, but definaetly false data.

"When the answer in says "I don't know". Creationist say "God did it" "

So you put god in the Gaps of your Knowledge.
Is that the best way to treat him?

"AND an awesome book on our side"

That is not good when it comes to science.

One thing that I always find interesting about ID, Is that, from what I understand, ID still suggests that Humans came from Ape ancestors and That the world is old and not Young.

Cantar, you claimed that creationist get different numbers than science or math textbooks. You would have to assume that everyone was using different experiment. Creationist has never gone outside the limits of an experiment by an evolutionist or whatnot. A creationist isnt going to make up data to verify their claim, and if you stopped saying "no, it aint true" all the time you'd see that. Look at some of the numbers, they corralate exactly to science. Creationist are unfortanatly on the defense when it comes to science. Science text books have flaws. When the answer in says "I don't know". Creationist say "God did it", and yet there's still evidence showed for intelligent design. When you see the earth being in "EXACTLY" the right way you'd understand that chance didn't do it, yet an intelligent designer

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/entrance.htm

Great site speaking of odds
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Another great site about evolution
http://www.freegift77.com/evolutio.htm

The bear bottom line fact is that sciencist believe in theories (yes, theory based on intelligent scientific experiments, but still a theory notheless) and at least creationist have science AND an awesome book on our side, its 2 against 1 folks.

 

[Jet Black]

But to my orginal point: Everyone knows the sun makes up 99.85% of all the mass in our solar system. The sun is primarily made up of Hydrogen and Helium.

well spotted.

If you take the closest planets near the sun you would get mercury, venus, earth, and mars. Now earth is 149,600,000 km miles from the sun, inches compared to the vastness of other planets and the entire universe in general. One would expect that these planets (earth included) would be made up of sum of the same composition as the sun, which to remind you is 99.85% of all the mass in our solar system.

apart from being physically wrong, this is a logical fallacy. There is no reason to deduce that because the sun is made of hydrogen and comprises 99% of the solar system, then the rest of the solar system should be made of hydrogen too.
The physics comes into it because of escapr velocities:

The kinetic energy of a particle E=(3/2)kT where k is bolzmann's constant and T is the temperature. heat hydrogen up to the temperature of the earth, and you find that the velocity is greater than the escape velocity, so most gets washed away. Planets like Jupiter, SAturn, NEptune and Uranus do not suffer this problem as they are alot further away, so they are gas giants because the gas is cool enough to stay on the planet.

Yet, the earth has every know resource, almost every know element ever discovered, yet oddly enough only half of one percent of these nearby planets have hydrogen and helium. The earth's hydrogen and helium fails to compare to the other elements we find on earth http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/elabund.html
The earth, and surrounding planets, should have some of the same compostion has the sun, considering it's size, mass, and content of the sun.

this is a restatement of you earlier argument and suffers the same flaw. furthermore, the earth being te largest rocky body still has a reasonably strong magnetic field. as a result of this the solar wind does not have as much effect as on mars, which is why mars has very little atmosphere.

Likewise, the moon is too dissimliar to the earth, and vis vera. The earth has everything needed to handle man kind, i say for mankind, b.c fish, mammals, insects, ect, do not need these elements like man needs them. Everything on earth is given to us in great abundance, and still doesnt even come close to having the same composition as the sun.

in terms of composition, the moon is very similar to the earth, however conditions there are totally different. and man needs all the same elements as fish and so on. name one that we need that the rest of life does not, and I do not mean in a construction capacity, or something like Uranium.

To futher the aurgument, each planet and sun should orbit in the same direction (Law of Angular Momentum).

this is also completely wrong, the law conservation of angular momentum, and provided that angular momentum is conserved in all interactions, it doesn't matter which way the planets spin. It just happens that apart from extraordinary circumstances like things hitting the planet (possibly the reason the earth's spin is tilted) this means that on the whole planets will all spin in one direction. however with a complete history of the solar system, you can't say which way they should spin

Yet we find that 2 planets ( Venus, Uranus, and Pluto) and 6 moons orbit backward's from there celestial body body. This flies in the face of Centripetal Force, yet it still happens. If the sun is rotating clockwise, so should there orbiting
celestial bodies.

that is 3, and as explained before, with the additional point that Pluto is a member of the Kupier belt, and has probably suffered a few collisions, and the moons, they are probably captured objects so no problem there either.

This website is a great site about the population of the earth. The increase of population on earth and how it relates to millions of years and evolution, if that were true. Read the formula used, its a good one.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-021.htm

sorry, it is a terrible formula, formulas like that would have demonstrated that by now each human would have about two square feet of land to live on. The formula does not take into account hundreds and thousands of potential factors that we do not know about. the example of the plague here is a good one... do you think that has been the only plague? not to mention drought, starvations and war all the way back to the year dot

The earth has about 60 things that must happen for life to even be possible for humans. All these things are perfectly inline. Evolutionist like to say, it was awesome luck that we only have one moon, the distance from the moon and sun are important, the thickness of the earth's crust, the percentage of gases in the air, the magentic field of the earth, and so on and so far. It's painfully obviously that intelligent design was at work, everything seems to be perfect, does it not. But yea, evolutionist, i can only win the lottery a million times, a million times in a row too. The odd's of the big bang, evolution, first cell, DNA, animo acids in protein forming are near impossible. Evolutionist need eternity on there side, they dont.

this is another logical fallacy. because one thing is improbable does not make another thing certain. Futhermore you have not taken into account the weak anthropic principle; if all these unlikely* events had not happened, we wouldn't be here discussing it.

*we do not know how unlikely they are. we do not know for certain how the universe came to be, we do not know how possible life is, we do not know how common earth type planets are.. and so on....

 

[Jet Black]

the creationist ministry websites telling them that astronomers are as deluded about their speciality as biologists are.

yeap, a typical logical fallacy (I spot lots on here!) resulting from the fact that creationists insist on calling it all evolution, where what they are really doing is mixing cosmology in with evolution, and then by saying there are problems with one, then therefore there are problems with the other.

 

[Arikay]

Of course, it sometimes makes sense, considering many seem to do the same to the bible. Saying that if Adam and Eve werent literaly true, then Jesus wasnt true, and that would make christianity a False religion.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

To futher the aurgument, each planet and sun should orbit in the same direction (Law of Angular Momentum). Yet we find that 2 planets ( Venus, Uranus, and Pluto) and 6 moons orbit backward's from there celestial body body. This flies in the face of Centripetal Force, yet it still happens. If the sun is rotating clockwise, so should there orbiting
celestial bodies.

All planets do orbit the sun in the same direction. Venus and Neptune have clockwise rather than counter clockwise rotations.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_orbit

In standard science this is thought to be the result of collisions during planet formation. Neptune is drastically tipped on its axis and venus rotates very slowly. Regarding Neptune, if you take a ball and start it spinning counter clockwise and the tip it over you will find that it is spinning clockwise. As Jet Black has pointed out it is only total angular momentum that is conserved and then only in perfectly elastic collisions. Collisions be objects can easily change the direction of spin of one of the objects. Did you ever play pool?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Jet Black]

Of course, it sometimes makes sense, considering many seem to do the same to the bible. Saying that if Adam and Eve werent literaly true, then Jesus wasnt true, and that would make christianity a False religion.

neither side should do it, it isn't a school playground with kids screaming "you did it first"

 

[Jet Black]

All planets do orbit the sun in the same direction. Venus and Neptune have clockwise rather than counter clockwise rotations.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_orbit

In standard science this is thought to be the result of collisions during planet formation. Neptune is drastically tipped on its axis and venus rotates very slowly.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

I thought the roration of venus (and mercury and the moon) were due to resonances, because they all have fairly precise fractional relationships with their orbital periods (the moon is 1:1 for example, I forget the others, though I think mercury was 3:2)

 

[Arikay]

Actually I was talking about creationists.

Everyonce in awhile a creationist comes along here that claims that if we dont take Adam and Eve or Noahs Flood as Literal Events, then it also means we are saying Jesus was Fiction too, and Christianity is false.

neither side should do it, it isn't a school playground with kids screaming "you did it first"

 

[Jet Black]

Actually I was talking about creationists.

Everyonce in awhile a creationist comes along here that claims that if we dont take Adam and Eve or Noahs Flood as Literal Events, then it also means we are saying Jesus was Fiction too, and Christianity is false.

aah I see... heh. I thought you meant people debunking the whole bible by saying one bit of it is wrong.

 

[Arikay]

Heh, nope. But just think how many creationists, who group Abiogenesis with evolution, would be all over that person, saying that the bible is a composition of books and you cant disprove it all by attempting to disprove one book. Etc.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I thought the roration of venus (and mercury and the moon) were due to resonances, because they all have fairly precise fractional relationships with their orbital periods (the moon is 1:1 for example, I forget the others, though I think mercury was 3:2)

I have seen this explanation for venus due to coupling with its thick atmosphere. I will look around for it later. Venus has a very slow rotation.

Mercury's rotation is coupled to the sun in the same way that the moon's rotation is coupled to the earth so mercury keeps the same face to the sun.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The odd's of the big bang, evolution, first cell, DNA, animo acids in protein forming are near impossible

The odds of specific events occuring in human history that lead up to your own birth is near impossible. Therefore, you should not exist.

 

[Duane Morse]

Odds are not relevant. Saying something is near impossible so therefore could not be, contradicts itself.
We are here, all the conditions are right, it happened. The odds of it happeneing in a certain period of time, or in all of time, simply means that the occurance of that chance happening took place at a certain time point, and we are living the result.

Just because something has a 1 in a million chance of happening does not mean all posibilities have to be tried before it occurs. It could happen on the very first try, couldn't it? And as the million possibilities are tried, the chances come ever closer to 1:1 with the millionth try, as the other possibilities have already been eliminated.

 

[Duane Morse]

Yesterday a truck was towing two vehicles on the freeway. A tire blew out on one vehicle and separated from the rim. Either that or the rim came off, I am not clear on that point. However, it crossed one lane of traffic, down an embankment, and struck a child that was being pushed in a stroller along a walk path by his mother. The mother just saw a blur, and the child and stroller were gone-a-tumblin'.
Luckily, a bicycler saw what happened and performed CPR on the child until paramedics arrived, and the child survived. The child is 17 months old.

Tell me the odds of this happening. Both, being struck by the tire, and a 17 month old surviving the incident.