The Cambrian problem

[pat34lee]

We already gave you all of the equations necessary for calculating if a gas cloud can collapse into a star, and you haven't been able to refute any of it.

You didn't read my reply then. I gave the max density of a nebula, with the source.
You can't even get near earth atmosphere densities of gases, much less density
high enough to collapse into a star. Equations are fine for theories, but not all of
them pass the test of working in reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't read my reply then. I gave the max density of a nebula, with the source.
You can't even get near earth atmosphere densities of gases, much less density
high enough to collapse into a star. Equations are fine for theories, but not all of
them pass the test of working in reality.

So you can't do the math and therefore declare it impossible. That is not going to convince anyone at all.

 

[pat34lee]

Obviously you do not know what you are talking about. Some bacteria develop resistance to an antibiotic that targeted a specific receptor by accumulating a modified gene to change the target protein. That is not is not "loss of variation," nor were the genes "there already." In your messed-up thinking there must be a preexisting gene for all possible antibiotics. Think about that a little bit.

How little do scientists know of the working of genes and their
adaptibility? They have supposedly mapped the human genome,
but they are like children trying to understand advanced math books
with only other children to guide them.

 

[pat34lee]

You are at odds with the facts.

You can't be at odds with facts, only with someone's interpretation
of the facts.

 

[pat34lee]

The genes weren't already there. In an experiment done by the Lederbergs' back in the 1950's they tested your theory.
Not that you probably really care because you will completely ignore all of the facts that prove your wrong, go to another thread, and repeat the same falsehoods. Am I wrong?

Reread my statement before calling me a liar again. Yes, you are wrong.

I don't care if it takes 10 colonies before they find one resistant bacterium.
That is part of the genepool. Resistance is most likely a recessive trait that
serves no purpose in the wild, and so it isn't normally called to be expressed.
Kill enough and you find the few who have that resistance.

 

[lasthero]

Reread my statement before calling me a liar again. Yes, you are wrong.

I don't care if it takes 10 colonies before they find one resistant bacterium.
That is part of the genepool. Resistance is most likely a recessive trait that
serves no purpose in the wild, and so it isn't normally called to be expressed.
Kill enough and you find the few who have that resistance.

Evidence? For any of this?

 

[pat34lee]

Yes, gases in a nebula can be very very thin. But nebulae can be very very large. Gravity does not go away. It is an additive force. I am not only looking at the finished product, I am also listening to people that can and have done the math. And the math is not that hard. If I brushed up on my skills I could calculate the gravitational force in a nebulae. I don't know if the ideal gas law still holds at such low pressures, but if I remember correctly the law fails at high pressures, not at low ones. I should be able to calculate the pressure of the gases too.

You need two equations for proof. One to determine the gravitation between atoms,
and another to find the force of the natural repulsion between atoms.

Which is stronger? Kinetic energy.

 

[pat34lee]

Evidence? For any of this?

The same evidence they use against this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need two equations for proof. One to determine the gravitation between atoms,
and another to find the force of the natural repulsion between atoms.

Which is stronger? Kinetic energy.

Hardly. You keep forgetting that excess heat is radiated away.


Once again when you don't understand you should go to the experts first and they will explain to you how once the gasses of a nebula get too thick it will collapse into a star. No magic needed, just gravity.

 

[Jimmy D]

Nope, I'm just more honest. Nobody is paying me to hide the truth.

These last few pages sum up this board, when presented with actual verifiable facts as a rebuttal to their arguments the creationist plays the conspiracy card, quite sad really. Still, hopefully anyone still sitting on the fence can see just how poor the case for creationism is.

 

[Loudmouth]

You didn't read my reply then. I gave the max density of a nebula, with the source.
You can't even get near earth atmosphere densities of gases, much less density
high enough to collapse into a star. Equations are fine for theories, but not all of
them pass the test of working in reality.

We already showed you the calculations. You don't need densities equal to Earth's atmosphere.

http://astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~rlm/mathcad/addendum 4 chap 17 stellar evolution 1.htm

When we plug in the density and size of a standard nebula the equations demonstrate that it will collapse into a star.

 

[Loudmouth]

You need two equations for proof. One to determine the gravitation between atoms,
and another to find the force of the natural repulsion between atoms.

Which is stronger? Kinetic energy.

Please show the math.

 

[sfs]

Reread my statement before calling me a liar again. Yes, you are wrong.

I don't care if it takes 10 colonies before they find one resistant bacterium.
That is part of the genepool. Resistance is most likely a recessive trait that
serves no purpose in the wild, and so it isn't normally called to be expressed.
Kill enough and you find the few who have that resistance.

Recessive trait. In bacteria. You're going with that answer?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't care if it takes 10 colonies before they find one resistant bacterium.
That is part of the genepool. Resistance is most likely a recessive trait that
serves no purpose in the wild, and so it isn't normally called to be expressed.
Kill enough and you find the few who have that resistance.

I am getting as big of a chuckle as sfs. I will second his question. How do you get a recessive trait in bacteria?

More importantly, you only see 1 resistant bacterium in billions, not 10 or so. The other question you need to answer is why this supposed recessive trait only gets turned on in 1 in a billion bacteria.

You also have the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment to contend with. Why doesn't the number of resistant bacteria follow a Poisson distribution in the bacteria plated onto plates with antibiotics? Why is there such a large fluctuation in the number of resistant colonies from culture to culture?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria–Delbrück_experiment

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

How little do scientists know of the working of genes and their
adaptibility? They have supposedly mapped the human genome,
but they are like children trying to understand advanced math books
with only other children to guide them.

But you understand everything and lecture real scientists about their many errors.

 

[crjmurray]

Please show the math.

Oh God yes please do the math @pat34lee

 

[pat34lee]

These last few pages sum up this board, when presented with actual verifiable facts as a rebuttal to their arguments the creationist plays the conspiracy card, quite sad really. Still, hopefully anyone still sitting on the fence can see just how poor the case for creationism is.

So far, all I see is the same arguments being presented and nobody dealing
with the objections I raised, other than to dismiss them.

Anyway, we haven't even gotten into the case for creationism, this is still the
case against naturalism, and why it is impossible from the big bang forward.

 

[Paulos23]

So far, all I see is the same arguments being presented and nobody dealing
with the objections I raised, other than to dismiss them.

Anyway, we haven't even gotten into the case for creationism, this is still the
case against naturalism, and why it is impossible from the big bang forward.

Your objections look refuted to me. I haven't seen you respond to posts refuting them.

 

[lasthero]

So far, all I see is the same arguments being presented and nobody dealing
with the objections I raised, other than to dismiss them.

Anyway, we haven't even gotten into the case for creationism, this is still the
case against naturalism, and why it is impossible from the big bang forward.

Your objections look refuted to me. I haven't seen you respond to posts refuting them.

I second this.

 

[pat34lee]

We already showed you the calculations. You don't need densities equal to Earth's atmosphere.

View attachment 167673
http://astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~rlm/mathcad/addendum 4 chap 17 stellar evolution 1.htm

When we plug in the density and size of a standard nebula the equations demonstrate that it will collapse into a star.

Two things.

The densities of gas on earth are many times that of space.
Why don't stars form in our atmosphere?
Jupiter and Saturn have even denser atmospheres.
Why aren't they stars?

The point at which a gas collapses into a star is theoretical.
It has never been observed.
Why do you accept it as fact with no proof it
ever happened?
or could happen?

Even your side's scientists are saying current theories
are probably wrong.
http://www.space.com/12788-impossible-star-defies-theory.html