Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists Turn
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 31 of 63 (53393)
09-01-2003 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Brian
09-01-2003 5:54 PM


quote:
Can I ask you something MJah?
Is answersingenesis website your sole source of information?
You do know that the wider your reading list the better you will understand a topic?
Brian.
I just listed a big bang site, lol no it isn't though probably the most used.
------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"
holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Brian, posted 09-01-2003 5:54 PM Brian has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 32 of 63 (53405)
09-01-2003 11:18 PM


quote:
BINARIES
There is no way that stars could accidentally position themselves to carefully revolve about one another, yet over half of the stars are so arranged.
"Over half of the stars in our part of the universe are binary or multiple star systems. By studying the motion of binary stars, much can be learned about the stars considered individually."Jon K. West, "A Pre-main-sequence Stellar Model Applied to Close Binary Star Systems" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1981, p. 15.
GALAXY FORMATION
Galaxies are immense, carefully organized collections of stars. Most are arranged into a disk shape. Evolution can account neither for their formation, nor how they hold together without crashing into one another or flying apart.
"Despite the optimism of the preceding chapters, there are a great many things that the cosmologist not only does not know, but finds severe difficulty in envisaging a path towards finding out. Even if we beg the question of how the universe started, how did it become as it is now? In particular, how did the galaxies form? The encyclopedias and popular astronomical books are full of plausible tales of condensations from vortices, turbulent gas clouds and the like, but the sad truth is that we do not know how the galaxies came into existence."*Laurie John (ed.), Cosmology Now (1976), p. 85.
"The other urgent task in cosmology [the producing of stellar theories] is to understand how in the more recent past great masses of gas collapsed to form galaxies and clusters of galaxies."*James Binney, "Oddballs and Galaxy Formation," Nature, 255:275 (1975).
"Now some writers have discussed the possibility that some irregularity of density was present in the universe from the outset and that this led ultimately to the occurrence of galaxies. This idea has not achieved any success, since it assumes practically all that is to be inferred."*Laurie John (ed.), Cosmology Now (1976), p. 92.
"Nor is it understood why elliptical galaxies seem to have many more globular clusters per unit of mass than spiral galaxies. The observation is of particular significance because it argues against a popular theory of how the ellipticals formed. Alar Tommre of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other investigators have proposed that the elliptical galaxies are formed when spiral galaxies collide and merge. The strongest evidence against this hypothesis is the higher proportion of clusters in the ellipticals."*Ivan R. King, "Globular Clusters," Scientific American, 252:79, June 1985.
"There is much doubt, however, that galaxies evolve from one type to another at all."*George Abell, Exploration of the Universe, 2nd Ed. (1969), p. 629.
"Our conclusions, then, are that the sequence of the classification of galaxies is not an evolutionary sequence."*Paul W. Hodge, Physics and Astronomy of Galaxies and Cosmology (1966), p. 122.
"A completely satisfactory theory of galaxy formation remains to be formulated." *Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (1980), p. 22.
"The problem of explaining the existence of the galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."*James Trefil, Dark Side of the Universe (1988), p. 55.
"It turns out that in almost every case the velocities of the individual galaxies are high enough to allow them to escape from the cluster. In effect, the clusters are `boiling.' This statement is certainly true if we assume that the only gravitational force present is that exerted by visible matter, but it is true even if we assume that every galaxy in the cluster, like the Milky Way, is surrounded by a halo of dark matter that contains 90 percent of the mass of the galaxy."*James Trefil, Dark Side of the Universe (1988), p. 93.
"The array of observational facts must be explained by a satisfactory theory [on the evolution of the solar system], and the theory must be consistent with the principles of dynamics and modern theory if properly applied."*Fred L. Whipple, Earth, Moon, and Planets (3rd Ed., 1968), p. 243.
-pathlights
That should explain why I feel this way, see it is nearly impossible for that to happen.
------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"
holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by mark24, posted 09-02-2003 6:21 AM Trump won has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 33 of 63 (53411)
09-01-2003 11:25 PM


Or howabout this guys inferences on The big bang theory. Including binaries:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?foru...
No evolutionist has responded either I might add.
------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"
holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 11:30 PM Trump won has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 63 (53413)
09-01-2003 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Trump won
09-01-2003 11:25 PM


No evolutionist has responded either I might add.
Might that be because evolution is biology, and the questions you're asking are cosmology? Does the phrase "division of fields" mean anything to you?
But again, it's all just empyy assertion. He says that binaries can't form "by accident" but there's no evidence that's the case. It's just his opinion.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Trump won, posted 09-01-2003 11:25 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Trump won, posted 09-02-2003 12:04 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 35 of 63 (53422)
09-02-2003 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
09-01-2003 11:30 PM


My opinion seems to be shared by many scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 11:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2003 12:11 AM Trump won has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 63 (53428)
09-02-2003 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Trump won
09-02-2003 12:04 AM


Well, the two you've quoted. Now, I'm no cosmologist, and I haven't asked any, but I do read about astrophysics and stuff. And I've never heard anybody say that there's anything unexplainable about binary systems.
So far you haven't presented anything that would prevent two bodies from orbiting each other on their own. Is there some mechanism that you think prevents it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Trump won, posted 09-02-2003 12:04 AM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Trump won, posted 09-02-2003 12:22 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 37 of 63 (53430)
09-02-2003 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
09-02-2003 12:11 AM


By random processes it is almost impossible to form binary objects. As sources I've quoted above for proof.
------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"
holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2003 12:11 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2003 12:40 AM Trump won has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 63 (53438)
09-02-2003 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Trump won
09-02-2003 12:22 AM


As sources I've quoted above for proof.
But the sources you've quoted only offer opinion. Opinion isn't evidence. Your sources don't give any more evidence than you do.
If you're going to say that binary objects are impossible, then all orbits are impossible. If it's your opinion that no objects come into orbit by themselves, well, I'll need to see evidence of God's own Hand putting them into place, right now. Because binary objects are being formed even now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Trump won, posted 09-02-2003 12:22 AM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Trump won, posted 09-02-2003 12:43 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 39 of 63 (53440)
09-02-2003 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
09-02-2003 12:40 AM


quote:
Because binary objects are being formed even now.
Really? Where? It seems you are committing the crimes you accused me of.
[This message has been edited by messenjaH the leader of evcforum, 09-01-2003]
[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 09-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2003 12:40 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2003 12:44 AM Trump won has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 63 (53441)
09-02-2003 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Trump won
09-02-2003 12:43 AM


Really? Where?
Out in space. Where else?
Ok, I realize that's a non-answer. Unfortunately I have to go to work now so I can't look them up right now. Maybe somebody else could hit google for us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Trump won, posted 09-02-2003 12:43 AM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coragyps, posted 09-02-2003 12:59 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 41 of 63 (53443)
09-02-2003 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
09-02-2003 12:44 AM


Try in the Orion Molecular Cloud, or the Taurus or Serpens Molecular Clouds, or nearly anyplace else that astronomers look with infrared and millimeter wave telescopes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2003 12:44 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by sidelined, posted 09-02-2003 2:22 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 42 of 63 (53449)
09-02-2003 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Coragyps
09-02-2003 12:59 AM


Sorry coragyps i am not responding to your thread but merely launching a query. I have not had any creationists try to answer the questions in post#30 and I am wondering why.It is really not necessary to be correct. The point of it is to see what your world view is compared to that which has been thouroghly researched and tested over and over and acceptedas being the bets explanation of the data.Once I recieve some good level of response I will post the answers in order for you to see how even everyday events are taken for granted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Coragyps, posted 09-02-2003 12:59 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Mammuthus, posted 09-02-2003 3:48 AM sidelined has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 43 of 63 (53450)
09-02-2003 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by sidelined
09-02-2003 2:22 AM


In fact sidelined, no creationist has answered or even attempted to answer your original question in the first post of this thread. Thus far 4 creationists have posted that they personally cannot fathom how evolution could account for the diversity of life...and then for whatever reason the thread went off track into cosmology...but regardless, it would seem that the creationists on this board are unable (and unwilling to try) to posit a
1. testable hypothesis of creation
2. demonstrate how it is falsifiable
3. provide evidence supporting the hypothesis
4. how it better explains what is observed than competing theories
thus far 1 and 2 have never been addressed. 3 has always been quotes from the bible or quotes from websites that quote from the bible
4. consists of things like "evidence for ID is self evident" or "I cannot personally understand how this system could have evolved therefore it must have been god" type of arguments....the point is where are the creationists who ACTUALLY want to try to propose how to engage in science to support their position? Like god(s), I don't think they exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by sidelined, posted 09-02-2003 2:22 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by sidelined, posted 09-02-2003 9:47 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 44 of 63 (53465)
09-02-2003 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Trump won
09-01-2003 11:18 PM


messenJah,
Not a single one of your quotes supported your contention that orbiting bodies are unlikely. In fact, you provisded noithing to refute the standard astronomical model of stellar system formation, here.
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Trump won, posted 09-01-2003 11:18 PM Trump won has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 45 of 63 (53467)
09-02-2003 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by defenderofthefaith
08-31-2003 3:04 AM


The beetle apparently does not need this gun as it is related to other beetles without such a defense mechanism..
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2002 Aug;24(2):228-48. Related Articles, Links
Erratum in:
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003 Feb;26(2):334-6..
Phylogenetic relationships of the carabid subfamily Harpalinae (Coleoptera) based on molecular sequence data.
Ober KA.
Department of Entomology, 410 Forbes Building, Interdisciplinary Program in Insect Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. kober@uconnvm.uconn.edu
The carabid subfamily Harpalinae contains most of the species of carabid beetles. This subfamily, with over 19,000 species, radiated in the Cretaceous to yield a large clade that is diverse in morphological form and ecological habit. While there are several morphological, cytological, and chemical characters that unite most harpalines, the placement of some tribes within the subfamily remains controversial, as does the sister group relationships to this large group. In this study, DNA sequences from the 28S rDNA gene and the wingless nuclear protein-coding gene were collected from 52 carabid genera representing 31 harpaline tribes in addition to more than 21 carabid outgroup taxa to reconstruct the phylogeny of this group. Molecular sequence data from these genes, along with additional data from the 18S rDNA gene, were analyzed with a variety of phylogenetic analysis methods, separately for each gene and in a combined data approach. Results indicated that the subfamily Harpalinae is monophyletic with the enigmatic tribes of Morionini, Peleciini, and Pseudomorphini included within it. Brachinine bombardier beetles are closely related to Harpalinae as they form the sister group to harpalines or, in some analyses, are included within it or with austral psydrines. The austral psydrines are the sister group to Harpalinae+Brachinini clade in most analyses and austral psydrines+Brachinini+Harpalinae clade is strongly supported.
In addition there are more primitive i.e. ancestral versions of the bombadier beetle defense mechanism in some species...
J Exp Biol. 2000 Apr;203 Pt 8:1265-75. Related Articles, Links
Spray mechanism of the most primitive bombardier beetle (Metrius contractus).
Eisner T, Aneshansley DJ, Eisner M, Attygalle AB, Alsop DW, Meinwald J.
Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. te14@cornell.edu
The bombardier beetle Metrius contractus discharges its defensive secretion as a froth that clings to its body. When attacked from the rear, it allows the froth to build up over the gland openings near the abdominal tip; when attacked from the front, it conveys the secretion forwards along special elytral tracks. M. contractus has two-chambered defensive glands typical of bombardier beetles, and its secretion, like that of other bombardiers, is quinonoid and hot. Its frothing mechanism, however, is unique for bombardiers and possibly illustrative of the ancestral glandular discharge mechanism of these beetles. M. contractus, thus, could be the least derived of extant bombardiers.
Now why exactly is it impossible for this to have evolved?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by defenderofthefaith, posted 08-31-2003 3:04 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Rei, posted 09-17-2003 7:57 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024