How science knows your gold ring came from stars

[Brightmoon]

So, Evolution's prediction was that fish may become amphibians .. and we then found tiktaalik, which provided the evidence supporting that prediction(?)

So Evolution's prediction was that with sufficient evidence we may be able to determine the colors of bird fossil's feathers .. and then we accumulated that sufficient evidence, thus supporting that prediction(?)

So Evolution's prediction was that, with sufficient evidence, we may be able to study proteins from dinosaurs and other fossil organisms and then Mary Schweitzer found sufficient evidence supporting that prediction(?)

So Evolution's prediction was that we'd find sufficient evidence with sufficiently close similarities of human and ape families, which may enable things such as the retirement of the Pongidae name, and then we found the evidence for doing that(?)

. You seem to want to insinuate that scientists are making stuff up like creationists do . Why don’t you just come out and say that?

The chemical structure of feather colors was already known inliving birds and we were able to determine the feather color in some fossil
birds and dinosaurs.
Humans were already known to be closely related to chimps and other apes . The chimp genome project moved our position on the family tree and we are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas . That’s why the old name for the non human apes was retired.

Dr Schweitzers experiment discovered a new natural way of preserving tissue . The soft tissue was preserved enough to examine in detail so that we now know that some dinosaurs cartilage chemical structure is like an ostrich’s
The prediction was that all vertebrates are related and tiktaalik just added evidence to that . There were already other fishopods like Crassigyrinus.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

• Discussions with non Christians must be respectful keeping in mind that just because someone has not yet accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior does not mean that the Lord won't draw him/her at a later time. (Col 4:2-6)
• Christians are stewards of Christ and His word and as such it is expected that all non Christians be treated respectfully by speaking the truth in love (1 Peter 3:15).
• Christians should hold themselves to a higher standard given that this is a Christian site. Non Christians, lurkers, the weak of faith, etc. are reading your posts which means that the impression you give is what they see.
• Keep in mind that this IS a Christian website and as such CF reserves the right to choose what content is appropriate.
• All discussions with the intent of belittling or mocking Christians or Christianity will be promptly removed.
• All discussions belittling Christians by calling them mentally inferior, ignorant, bigoted, etc. will be promptly removed.
• All discussions blaspheming the Christian God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit will be promptly removed.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[SelfSim]

It appears my last post was deleted for some strange, unexplained reason.

My point in that post was that I am looking into how (or why) we somehow rather oddly manage to take science's models beyond their intended purpose of making more and more accurate predictions (over time).

In no way was I ever intending to give the impression that scientists are just 'making stuff up' .. Far from it.

Accuracy in predictions is a very powerful tool which has been shown countless times as ultimately benefiting everyone. This is not to say that sometimes, when models are incomplete to the extent that reasonable predictions may not be possible (or robust), that advances made in other areas which, when applied to the models, fortuitously, significantly end up enhancing their resolution/accuracy. Unexpected discoveries of things, previously unknown (or unseen), such as those items mentioned in Brightmoon's post, would seem to fall into that category.

I am certainly not arguing untestable Creationism. I also see little or no use for arguing that advances made in the accuracies of science's models also somehow means that science miraculously then gains more access and insight into anything more than a methodical way of improving those models (and thence, predictions).

Science is a human endeavour .. so is religion but both are quite distinct by way of the completely different processes they follow .. science objectively tests .. religion propagates fundamentally already held beliefs. Science is not religion .. and we should keep it that way by not attempting to make out that it goes beyond a human endeavour .. because that's what makes it useful to us.

 

[SelfSim]

From post#25:

... God wrote stuff first so the Johnny come lately demon science fable mongers need to explain their claims/beliefs.

Abuse of scientists in the name of God is unbecoming (and unwarranted).

... There is no they, it was God using people that gave the word to man. They do not matter.

I'm sorry ... denigrating people does matter.

 

[Brightmoon]

I’ll give you aPrediction . Darwin predicted, based on the evidence, that there would have be a moth with an extremely long tongue to fertilize a trumpet shaped night blooming flower with a long tube . Iirc Darwin never saw the moth but others discovered it years later. He predicted this based on the facts that he had about that flower and others in the same genus or family. This is what science predictions are like . A modern prediction is when we find fossil organisms based on a very good understanding of genetics , molecular clocks , genetic clocks , geological layering and plate tectonics. We found Tiktaalik like that and most modern protowhale fossils


Here’s Darwin’s moth

 

[AV1611VET]

I’ll give you aPrediction . Darwin predicted, based on the evidence, that there would have be a moth with an extremely long tongue to fertilize a trumpet shaped night blooming flower with a long tube . Iirc Darwin never saw the moth but others discovered it years later.

He never saw the moth? or he claimed he never saw the moth?

He could have been mistaken.

What about people who can draw a map of a city block in Germany, despite the fact that they have never set foot in Germany?

Usually it turns out they saw a map at one time, and it resurfaced as a latent memory.

 

[SelfSim]

He never saw the moth? or he claimed he never saw the moth?

He could have been mistaken.

All predictions are uncertain.

What about people who can draw a map of a city block in Germany, despite the fact that they have never set foot in Germany?

Usually it turns out they saw a map at one time, and it resurfaced as a latent memory.

So what remains when they they're dead and their 'prediction' is long forgotten? A mere reminder of uncertainty?
What remains as a result of Darwin's prediction?
A huge body of objectively evidenced models which predict with accuracy and other folk can actually make use of!

 

[AV1611VET]

So what remains when they they're dead and their 'prediction' is long forgotten?

It wasn't a prediction in the first place.

 

[SelfSim]

It wasn't a prediction in the first place.

Hmm you presented it as one .. and I agree that it was .. You're context was in error though. The observation you cited pertains to the unreliable basis of an individual's subjective memory (or belief basis).

Scientific objectivity underpinning its models involves a different process step however .. Eg: peer review and independent verification.

As I said, science is defined by its process ... religion involves reinforcing persistent beliefs (and assumptions positing the existence of 'truths').. the processes are completely different.

 

[AV1611VET]

...

What?

Is it me ... or was my good point just swept under a clipboard of technospeak, hoping it would be forgotten?

 

[SelfSim]

What?

Is it me ... or was my good point just swept under a clipboard of technospeak, hoping it would be forgotten?

Your point had a mistaken objective context.
Funny how you've ended up demonstrating the unreliable basis of independent subjectivity in a physical science forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your point had a mistaken objective context.
Funny how you've ended up demonstrating the unreliable basis of independent subjectivity in a physical science forum.

Ahem ...

Did you not say you would "give me a prediction"?

I'm still waiting for it.

 

[Astrophile]

They ran a computer sim based on principles and stellar evolution theory...


"Using supercomputers, the trio simulated the dynamics of collapsars, or old stars whose gravity causes them to implode and form black holes."

Earth's heavy metals result of supernova explosion, research reveals


Religion, of course. Not sure why it is in a science pub.

Thank-you for informing us about this interesting paper; you can read more of it on Collapsars as a major source of r-process elements | Nature . However, I don't understand why you regard this piece of research as religious rather than scientific, or why you chose to start a thread about this particular paper.

 

[Halbhh]

Here's one.

Analysis of light from the Aug. 17 kilonova event indicates the neutron star collision in a galaxy known as NGC 4883 did, in fact, seed the local environment with a flood of heavy elements.

The combined observations “revealed details that we’ve never seen before in any astronomical event, the direct fingerprints of the heaviest elements in the periodic table — gold, platinum, and other elements,” said Edo Berger, a Harvard University astronomer who led a team of observers.

“From the properties of the visible and infrared light, we conclude the total mass of heavy elements produced in this one single event is 16,000 times the mass of the Earth,” he said. “Of this material, we estimate that about 10 times the mass of the Earth is in gold and platinum alone. So imagine this as you gaze at your jewelry or invest in gold futures.”

Now you're talking. I'd read in the last few years the models of single star supernovae could not produce enough gold, but the merger of 2 neutron stars could. The LIGO detection (see post #4) of this merger, aka ''kilonova" -- what a moment! I'd put it up there in exciting moments close to when starlight deflection was first observed in the 1919 eclipse, the first support observation for the radical new theory of General Relativity. More fun to me than the recent black hole imaging.

 

[SelfSim]

Ahem ...

Did you not say you would "give me a prediction"?

I'm still waiting for it.

I hypothesise that your perception that I did, might be a belief that I did .. (where I define a belief as being a notion held as being true for any reason).
Is it true that I said that?

 

[AV1611VET]

I hypothesise that your perception that I did, might be a belief that I did .. (where I define a belief as being a notion held as being true for any reason).
Is it true that I said that?

Oops, sorry! Brightmoon said it. My bad.

 

[Halbhh]

These gold creating mergers are thought to only happen about once in 100,000 years in a galaxy like ours.
Ancient Neutron-Star Crash Made Enough Gold and Uranium to Fill Earth's Oceans

 

[SelfSim]

Oops, sorry! Brightmoon said it. My bad.

'Twas a belief that I said it then.

 

[AV1611VET]

'Twas a belief that I said it then.

'Twas sho'nuff!

 

[dad]

From post#25: Abuse of scientists in the name of God is unbecoming (and unwarranted).
I'm sorry ... denigrating people does matter.

Fighting God's word and creation is evil. When the bible talks of those who come together to fight God, it gets ruff. Sorry if you thought the world was on big happy family.

That being said I even have tried to be kind to folks here who have rejected for years.