Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Loudmouth]

That claim can only be raised under conditions of extrapolation as I have posted.

But that is exactly what it is, it is an extrapolation from measuring laws in other places. Unless someone was there to measure the natural laws in that place at that time, then it is an extrapolation according to your definition.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is this important?

Look at the title of the article.

Scientific Experiments Show That DNA Begins as a Quantum Wave and Not as a Molecule

In all those examples, DNA begins as a molecule, not a quantum wave.

How would you change the experiments to get a more convincing proof or disproof if what they are claiming is true?

Start with a quantum wave and no molecules, obviously.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know far more about this than I do, as this is your area of specialization. I just think: specifically 10k/6k=1.67. Even 1.8 does not sound like a lot to me, but it seems to cause you to think that it is too large to have occurred. So let me ask: Is algal blossoms a good example for this specific case? Can you provide a model that would take into consideration the death rate due to overcrowding, and what the maximum possible long term growth rate could be? Is it possible that destruction of marine life just in the immediate area could have occurred (I can substantiate the likelihood of that from the existing literary reports)? Finally, would a partial tearing hypothesis work: like the land was split at the cliffs of Dover creating some sort of deep fissure where conditions were right for the algae, then the algae grew at an accelerated rate, and finally the land split again allowing the ocean to fill the space left by the gap? I can substantiate the possibility of final tearing (from the written records) approximately 1700 years after the flood.

That entire proposal requires that natural laws be the same in the past, which you reject.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You know far more about this than I do, as this is your area of specialization. I just think: specifically 10k/6k=1.67. Even 1.8 does not sound like a lot to me, but it seems to cause you to think that it is too large to have occurred. So let me ask: Is algal blossoms a good example for this specific case? Can you provide a model that would take into consideration the death rate due to overcrowding, and what the maximum possible long term growth rate could be? Is it possible that destruction of marine life just in the immediate area could have occurred (I can substantiate the likelihood of that from the existing literary reports)? Finally, would a partial tearing hypothesis work: like the land was split at the cliffs of Dover creating some sort of deep fissure where conditions were right for the algae, then the algae grew at an accelerated rate, and finally the land split again allowing the ocean to fill the space left by the gap? I can substantiate the possibility of final tearing (from the written records) approximately 1700 years after the flood.

Well, the deep fissure idea doesn't work, as algae need light to grow and reproduce, so once you start getting a couple meters beyond the surface of the water, the space in which they can grow runs out. Most sea life lives near shores and shallows for this reason: the plant life the majority rely directly on (and the prey the predators consume) can only live near the surface.

As for death rates and the impact on the immediate area, this could be a start as to learning a bit about it for yourself, as summarizing in this kind of detail is beyond my personal expertise Harmful Algal Blooms | Nutrient Pollution | US EPA

However, remember that the chalk cliffs are formed from diatoms, not algae, so if they grew in a sudden bloom, they probably wouldn't be toxic to other creatures, but they'd still choke themselves out with overpopulation. It is the changes in pH and salinity of the water which would cause the most death of sea life during a world wide flood, with temperature contributing some as well.

 

[Astrophile]

And I would judge the accuracy of the colors in the photographs by seeing how other objects in the same photo are colored.

Here's an answer for your challenge to show one star passing behind another.

Binary star - Wikipedia

The article in Wikipedia has an interesting MOTION PICTURE - based on images, not an interpretive drawing - of an eclipsing binary, in which the stars that orbit each other happen to line up in such a way as to have one go behind the other on a periodic, regular basis. The article has a discussion as to how this helps astronomers determine stellar distances more accurately.

Here is a picture of epsilon Aurigae during the eclipse of 2008-9; it shows the disc that surrounds the secondary star passing in front of the F-type supergiant primary star.

 

[Astrophile]

I don't see an efficient way to check the spectroscopy of the proper motions relative to the center of mass of the solar system. Without that, we cannot verify if the spectroscopy is changed in ancient times or not. And without that, we cannot be sure of the movement of the star toward us.

I am not sure what you mean here. First, stellar proper motions are measured by direct imaging of the positions of stars, not by spectroscopy; it is radial velocity measurements that use spectroscopy, or, more precisely, the Doppler shifts of the stellar spectral lines. Second, there is a standard mathematical method for correcting the geocentric radial velocity of a star to the heliocentric radial velocity. The method uses only simple trigonometry, and it is taught in undergraduate courses in astronomy. You can find it in Chapter IX of W.M. Smart's book Spherical Astronomy.

 

[Astrophile]

I already stated, I don't mean eclipsing binaries. Fort's argument deals with stars at different distances from earth. All stars in a binary system are roughly the same distance from earth.

But in post 493 you said that Fort's conclusion 'was that stars are not "hanging" in space at various distances, they must be painted on some kind of canopy'. Eclipsing binaries, in which one star in a binary system passes in front of the other, are impossible if the stars are painted on a canopy rather than moving freely in space.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Of course not. I just stated binary star systems are not an adequate counterexample, because the argument For used only applies if there is some distance between star 1 and star 2

There is some distance between star 1 and star 2 in a binary eclipsing system. It is true that in many cases it is a distance we normally associate with solar system distances, not typical stellar separation distances, but it's certainly enough to rule out stars being mere dots on a two dimensional canvas.

when you said this:

I already stated, I don't mean eclipsing binaries. Fort's argument deals with stars at different distances from earth. All stars in a binary system are roughly the same distance from earth.

it looks as if you have conceded that stars NOT in a binary system are NOT roughly the same distance from earth.

Have you thought about how measuring the width of the orbit a binary system makes - based on direct measurement of the motions of the stars - combined with how long it takes to make an orbit - gives you enough information to determine the distance to the stars by plain ol trigonometry?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Look at the title of the article.

Scientific Experiments Show That DNA Begins as a Quantum Wave and Not as a Molecule

In all those examples, DNA begins as a molecule, not a quantum wave.




Start with a quantum wave and no molecules, obviously.

But they start with a molecule with no waveform. DNA already exists and affects the molecule to turn into that form.

 

[Ken Behrens]

That entire proposal requires that natural laws be the same in the past, which you reject.

I am asking for a model based on laws tested over the last 200 years. I want to see if the assumption that these have been the same for 6000 years is enough. I accept the 6000 year duration, and question anything beyond that.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Well, the deep fissure idea doesn't work, as algae need light to grow and reproduce, so once you start getting a couple meters beyond the surface of the water, the space in which they can grow runs out. Most sea life lives near shores and shallows for this reason: the plant life the majority rely directly on (and the prey the predators consume) can only live near the surface.

As for death rates and the impact on the immediate area, this could be a start as to learning a bit about it for yourself, as summarizing in this kind of detail is beyond my personal expertise Harmful Algal Blooms | Nutrient Pollution | US EPA

However, remember that the chalk cliffs are formed from diatoms, not algae, so if they grew in a sudden bloom, they probably wouldn't be toxic to other creatures, but they'd still choke themselves out with overpopulation. It is the changes in pH and salinity of the water which would cause the most death of sea life during a world wide flood, with temperature contributing some as well.

I have references to bodies of land turning sideways, so what is now a fissure could have started as a lake of small depth and then turned 90 degrees to become upright. The writings are consistent with such a lake lasting 1600 years, and then turning upright into a cliff in a few isolated locations.

Did some reading. Diatoms have a large amount of silicon in them. This is relevant since the technology operated using crystals. I also learned that division rates as high as .41/day have been noted, thus duplicating 150 times a year. Also growth rate is linear with temperature. The writings indicate small areas of molten rock and metal dumping into the ocean. Together, that makes it look like a few years could easily cover the bottom of a shallow lake, which could then turn upright into a cliff. 2^150=10^15 is 1 quadrillion algae form one parent in a year. The writings support the scenario, in a very few random locations.

I read the geological theory, and it seems consistent with what I just wrote, if one starts out assuming the flood as I believe it happened, instead of the long-time ago geologic theory..

 

[Ken Behrens]

I am not sure what you mean here. First, stellar proper motions are measured by direct imaging of the positions of stars, not by spectroscopy; it is radial velocity measurements that use spectroscopy, or, more precisely, the Doppler shifts of the stellar spectral lines. Second, there is a standard mathematical method for correcting the geocentric radial velocity of a star to the heliocentric radial velocity. The method uses only simple trigonometry, and it is taught in undergraduate courses in astronomy. You can find it in Chapter IX of W.M. Smart's book Spherical Astronomy.

I mean that I understand and agree with the trigonometry used to determine the special motions. I am not certain that the spectral measurements are accurate, for reasons I have mentioned, like bending of space. It occurs to me that if there were a way to determine the spectral motions relative to the center of mass, we could then determine if the spectral motions are correct, using the trigonometric motions I agree with.

 

[Ken Behrens]

But in post 493 you said that Fort's conclusion 'was that stars are not "hanging" in space at various distances, they must be painted on some kind of canopy'. Eclipsing binaries, in which one star in a binary system passes in front of the other, are impossible if the stars are painted on a canopy rather than moving freely in space.

I have seen gifs of moving binaries, and they are clearly resting on my 2 dimensional screen. Or, we can say that the stars are all hanging on a backdrop, and some are like the mobiles on a child's crib. The issue is whether stars are at various distances in space or all pretty much the same distance away. I could simply amend the claim sllghtly, to get at what I am trying to get at.

 

[Ken Behrens]

There is some distance between star 1 and star 2 in a binary eclipsing system. It is true that in many cases it is a distance we normally associate with solar system distances, not typical stellar separation distances, but it's certainly enough to rule out stars being mere dots on a two dimensional canvas.

when you said this:



it looks as if you have conceded that stars NOT in a binary system are NOT roughly the same distance from earth.

Have you thought about how measuring the width of the orbit a binary system makes - based on direct measurement of the motions of the stars - combined with how long it takes to make an orbit - gives you enough information to determine the distance to the stars by plain ol trigonometry?

It would not matter to the theory I am trying to get at, which perhaps I misstated. Let's say we have a list of the distance from earth to a few different starts, selected at random. I'm sure we do, actually. Let the longest distance be 100, for the sake of comparison. The current theory predicts that some stars would be 20, some 30, some 40, etc. Fort's objection is that they must all be about the same distance because they do not cross. A binary star, composed of two stars orbiting, would be more like 90 and 91 or 89. This data does not help us to tell which theory is correct.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It would not matter to the theory I am trying to get at, which perhaps I misstated. Let's say we have a list of the distance from earth to a few different starts, selected at random. I'm sure we do, actually. Let the longest distance be 100, for the sake of comparison. The current theory predicts that some stars would be 20, some 30, some 40, etc. Fort's objection is that they must all be about the same distance because they do not cross. A binary star, composed of two stars orbiting, would be more like 90 and 91 or 89. This data does not help us to tell which theory is correct.

Considering the actual width of a star in a telescope . . . and considering how many stars we have a measured via the orbital parallax method . . . to ask that one of them actually occlude another before you accept those results is to ask for an extremely improbable event. In other words, your choice for what you will accept as a key piece of evidence and your choice to deny all other key pieces of evidence is . . . a smoke screen.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

6. Einstein's theory has been recently challenged, with some experimental evidence. 5 things Albert Einstein got totally wrong Experiment Proves Einstein Wrong

Most of those things Albert Einstein got "totally wrong" are things in which he didn't trust the answers his theory was giving and it turned out his theory was right all along. In other words, you link does NOT SUPPORT your claim that "Einstein's theory has been recently challenged". The only "challenge" it presents with any merit whatsoever are things I've been reading about for years and years . . . what to do to reconcile with quantum mechanics and what to do about the cosmological constant.

That's NOT RECENT.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Considering the actual width of a star in a telescope . . . and considering how many stars we have a measured via the orbital parallax method . . . to ask that one of them actually occlude another before you accept those results is to ask for an extremely improbable event. In other words, your choice for what you will accept as a key piece of evidence and your choice to deny all other key pieces of evidence is . . . a smoke screen.

Charles Fort wrote this in the 1930's, using an exhaustive search of about 100 years of newspapers, which, in those days, covered many astronomical observations. Thus he had a record spanning most of the 1800's. In 1976, I saw the sky away from a city for the first time, an di could not believe the density of stars. I am told that before air pollution, say in the 1800's, especially at sea, the sky was so full of stars, that in some spots you could not tell where there was space between them. How about we do the computation: can we find any pictures of the night sky from the 1800's and modern light pollution, and let a computer run a pixel scan to see what percent is light and what is darkness. Then, we use the results of the scan to compute the percentage likelihood of 2 stars being close enough to cross, and compare that with the width of a star in a telescope?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Whatever made those rocks is gone. That's my problem.

Rocks are still being made today.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Charles Fort wrote this in the 1930's, using an exhaustive search of about 100 years of newspapers, which, in those days, covered many astronomical observations. Thus he had a record spanning most of the 1800's. In 1976, I saw the sky away from a city for the first time, an di could not believe the density of stars. I am told that before air pollution, say in the 1800's, especially at sea, the sky was so full of stars, that in some spots you could not tell where there was space between them. How about we do the computation: can we find any pictures of the night sky from the 1800's and modern light pollution, and let a computer run a pixel scan to see what percent is light and what is darkness. Then, we use the results of the scan to compute the percentage likelihood of 2 stars being close enough to cross, and compare that with the width of a star in a telescope?

No need to do that. We can simply do the math. Full of stars the skies are . . . but that number of visible stars is about 2000. How much room in the sky, in terms of degrees, does a star take up? Any telescope Fort could have purchased in his day could never resolve a star into a disk; it would ever resolve as a point in the sky. Fort simply didn't take a fair estimate of how unlikely it would be for one star to overlap another. And apparently you don't either. A star doesn't take up more than a "second" of our sky . . . I trust you know what a second is in terms of degrees . . . and how many "seconds" are there in visible sky at a time?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Rocks are still being made today.

Proving nothing about the rocks made thousands of year ago, except that they look the same.