Solar system formation shown impossible by meteor

[TheBear]

Blind post -

"Science says"!

Brilliant!

 

[Speedwell]

That's not likely. And if it was likely, it would hardly be worth writing about in scripture other than a tourist note. So it was either a miracle, or a pointless geography notation.

The springs are still there.

 

[dad]

If Hypatia itself is not presolar,

It's right there in your quote. One explantation is that the asteroid isn't part of the same stuff as the rest of the solar system.

Another explanation is that space demon/angels gave it to someone in Egypt I suppose.

Another explanation is that the current ideas about solar system formation while mostly consistent with evidence might need a more complicated and nuanced explanation.

Another explanation is that it needs chucking out.

No one ever claims that science is perfect, just that it's practical and the most reliable source of detailed explanations we have.

It is not practical to claim that dust formed the planets etc. It is fanciful and anti bible.

 

[Speedwell]

Another explanation is that space demon/angels gave it to someone in Egypt I suppose.
Another explanation is that it needs chucking out.
It is not practical to claim that dust formed the planets etc. It is fanciful and anti bible.

How is it anti-Bible? God formed the first man out of dust. Why could He not have formed the Solar System out of dust?

 

[pgp_protector]

How is it anti-Bible? God formed the first man out of dust. Why could He not have formed the Solar System out of dust?

I guess there are just some things God can't do???

 

[Shemjaza]

Another explanation is that space demon/angels gave it to someone in Egypt I suppose.

I honestly can't tell if you are being serious or not.

Another explanation is that it needs chucking out.

But that explanation wouldn't be justified.

At worst. the dust cloud model is incomplete.

If I saw a knocked over telephone pole with shattered glass ask around and tire marks on the road then my theory would be a car accident had caused it... if I also found a boot print near the pole I wouldn't say: "Well cars don't wear boots, so I might as well believe that this whole situation is an art installation put here by purple rabbits."

It is not practical to claim that dust formed the planets etc. It is fanciful and anti bible.

Why not?

We can see dust clouds with telescopes and even just forming stars inside them.

As to anti Bible, I've never seen any reason to accept any interpretation of the book... let alone your particularly unique version.

 

[dad]

How is it anti-Bible? God formed the first man out of dust. Why could He not have formed the Solar System out of dust?

Look at how science says the dust formed things. Do you see God in there anywhere? What, you thought he was some sort of silent junior partner in creation? How about Scripture, do you really think it says the solar system formed that way? The earth was first, and the sun later if you recall.

 

[dad]

I honestly can't tell if you are being serious or not.
But that explanation wouldn't be justified.

No? There were no gods involved with ancient Egypt that had connections to stars?

At worst. the dust cloud model is incomplete.

No. That is not at worst. That is undeserved high praise to a fable.

If I saw a knocked over telephone pole with shattered glass ask around and tire marks on the road then my theory would be a car accident had caused it... if I also found a boot print near the pole I wouldn't say: "Well cars don't wear boots, so I might as well believe that this whole situation is an art installation put here by purple rabbits."

Ok.so..? Bring it all home to a point!

Why not?

We can see dust clouds with telescopes and even just forming stars inside them.

How many formed this week? Or perhaps you think we need to look at that dust for hundreds of millions of years to really get the pic?

As to anti Bible, I've never seen any reason to accept any interpretation of the book... let alone your particularly unique version.

OK. Apparently Jesus accepted Scripture. You don't.

 

[dad]

I guess there are just some things God can't do???

Such as lie. He said it was another way.

 

[Speedwell]

Look at how science says the dust formed things. Do you see God in there anywhere? What, you thought he was some sort of silent junior partner in creation?

LOL! No, He was senior partner. The Junior partner was His creature, nature.

How about Scripture, do you really think it says the solar system formed that way? The earth was first, and the sun later if you recall.

I don't think it says anything about the formation of the Solar System.

 

[SkyWriting]

The springs are still there.

So not a miracle then. Springs are common in some areas.
You might not be aware of that becasue it's not a big deal.
Nothing to write home about.

 

[dad]

LOL! No, He was senior partner. The Junior partner was His creature, nature.

So He had a creature that did the creating for Him in a way that is contrary to the way He says He did it?

I don't think it says anything about the formation of the Solar System.

It does, in that it lists the earth and sun and moon and stars and tells what order they were created in. The earth was first, the sun and moon later, so the story of science is completely false.

 

[Jimmy D]

What they don't do is admit they were dead wong before
or that they are likely to be wrong now.

What a load of rubbish.

 

[Shemjaza]

No? There were no gods involved with ancient Egypt that had connections to stars?

I have no reason to assume Egyptian gods are any more real then any other. Do you?

No. That is not at worst. That is undeserved high praise to a fable.

Because you say so?

One one side we have evidence and incomplete, but testable theories... and on the other side we have an ignorant man on the internet?

Ok.so..? Bring it all home to a point!

I was attempting to make you understand with an analogy.

So we have the situation:
* A solar system full of moving bodies made of various materials covered in signs of events from the past like debris and craters.
* A broken pole, tire tracks and scattered glass.

Next we have a tentative explanation consistent with what we know about the situation:
* A dust cloud collected into an array of objects by gravity that collided until a sort of equilibrium.
* A car crashed into the pole and broke it leaving tire tracks and glass.

But wait, there's an anomaly that doesn't perfectly fit the proposed scenario:
* A meteor made up of unexpected material in unusual proportions.
* A boot print near the broken pole.

Next there are possible explanations that are still consistent with what we can reasonably determine from investigating the properties of events known and materials present:
* The meteor may have formed separately outside the solar system or the dust cloud might have been less homogeneous then an initial inspection might lead one to think.
* Maybe someone walked past after the crash, or maybe there was a boot on the car that fell off.

Finally, there is a preposterous explanation that not only has no evidence to back it up, it assumes the existence of entities and events that are counter to what is known to be possible:
* The entire universe was transformed by supernatural split a few thousand years ago that somehow left evidence of billions of years of events and changes.
* The area was set up by artistic violet rabbits.

Do you understand my point now?

How many formed this week? Or perhaps you think we need to look at that dust for hundreds of millions of years to really get the pic?

The Orion Nebula is only 1300 light years away, so well within the nonsense time range of your split. There are gas clouds with proto-stars in every direction we can see.

OK. Apparently Jesus accepted Scripture. You don't.

I'm an atheist, so I obviously don't accept scripture. But I notice you are unashamedly declaring your own almost unique interpretation of scripture as correct and what Jesus believed.

Creationists tend to describe atheists as arrogant... but I don't see any of us implying that they, (among all the diversity Christians), have the correct insight into God's attitude.

 

[SkyWriting]

What a load of rubbish.

No examples of science admitting they are likely to be wrong?
It's OK. I couldn't find many either.

Here's one:
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?

 

[Jimmy D]

No examples of science admitting they are likely to be wrong?
It's OK. I couldn't find many either.

Here's one:
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?

"Many"? So you did find some examples then?

Oh, I see you've edited now, I thought it was "science" that couldn't admit they were wrong.

What a hypocrite.

 

[AirPo]

Look at how science says the dust formed things. Do you see God in there anywhere? What, you thought he was some sort of silent junior partner in creation? How about Scripture, do you really think it says the solar system formed that way? The earth was first, and the sun later if you recall.

Look at how the HI Theory has nothing to do with science but is really good at making things up.

 

[dad]

Look at how the HI Theory has nothing to do with science but is really good at making things up.

Waving away the topic eh?