B
buffalo
Guest
Same place it comes from for the Big Bang model.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
So the electron cloud around the atomic nucleus is eternal? It exists without energy to propel or sustain it?
God bless,
Ed
R
ricmat
Guest
When I asked them the question, they didn’t answer me. I didn’t expect that they’d have a real answer, but thought that they’d have an answer of some sort.
IMO scientists sometimes have the “event horizon” syndrome. When something comes up that they can’t explain, they push it out over the horizon where it is no longer visible. And therefore no longer needs to be addressed. The idea of an infinite number of multi-verses (to explain you-know-what) is a good example of this. But of course, it’s just delaying the very next question by a few seconds, which is - where did the multi-verses come from?
I
itinerant1
Guest
No problem. I was referring to one of your posts made prior to the latter ones about redshift. But I have since figured about what model of the universe Talbott and Thornhill prefer.
E
edwest2
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
In any model the energy has to come from someplace.
E
edwest2
Guest
Here is an article that gives more information about redshifts and that ‘someplace’ that energy comes from.
ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html
It appears some fundamental questions still lack answers.
God bless,
Ed
ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html
It appears some fundamental questions still lack answers.
God bless,
Ed
R
ricmat
Guest
And I thought Zero Point Modules were an invention of Stargate Atlantis.
Interesting article. Amongst other things, the article claims to have a solution for the “missing” mass of the universe. But wait! I thought that Dark Matter was the solution to that! Hmm…
Oh, while we’re on the subject of missing matter of the universe, I just read this today. It turns out that the “missing mass of the universe”, the problem which required the fantasy invention of Dark Matter to explain, is actually just “regular matter” that was hidden, and therefore not visible. How did we miss that one? Hmmm…
Dark Matter is hemorrhaging badly. As are a few other “facts” in the Scientific Truth world.
P
Philipp
Guest
Guy Berthault’s rebuttal to Kevin Henke is at the bottom of the latter’s critique. I looked at both and find both sides saying pretty much the same thing. It seems to me that the interpretations are a bit different. But I would make the point that others appear to have confirmed Guy Berthault’s discoveriles in the late 1990’s of his research performed in the late 1980’s.* References follow:
(1) Fineberg, Jay 1997. From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock formation. NATURE Vol 386, pp. 323-324, 27 March 1997 ABSTRACT: A Mixture of two diffeent types of grain can undergo spontaneous stratification simply be being poured. This SURPRISING (MY CAPS) behaviour may be significant in fields from plharmaceuticals to geology.
Comment by Philipp: “Surpising and significant to geology” is an understatement. When applied to how strata form by the laws of physics (mechanics) it suggests that most strata formed in moving waters at various speeds (meters/second).
(2) Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures
faqs.org/abstracts/Zoology-and-wildlife-conservation/Spontaneous-stratification-in-granular-mixtures-Self-similarity-of-complex-networks.html
End of Abstract from actual paper: “-----The stratification is related to the occurrence of avalanches: during each avalanche, the grains separate into a pair of static layers, with the small grain forming a sublayer underneath the layer of large grains.”
(3) answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/nature.asp on Guy’s research which explains the back ground
(4) icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01/ This particular web site gives an insight into just how carefully much maligned so-called “creationists” perform their research — this on Mt. St. Helens. It also points up to the fact that scientists can work together whereever their philosophy and/or religious beliefs takes them. Hopefully someday we might find all scientists working together to determine what different sciences have to say about our origins.
When we study our genologies we are not censored are we? Why does Academia censor and block other hypothsis of origins besides evolution being researched and taught? Most unscientific!
continued later
R
rossum
Guest
It suggest nothing of the sort. It suggests that some strata, formed in conditions where something analogous to “being poured” happened may have been formed in this way. As with Berthault’s original work some interesting and valid geology is being extended well beyond its limits.
Some interesting work of limited application. Attempting to apply it universally would be an error.
Answers in Genesis explicitly state in their Statement of Faith that they will ignore any evidence that disagrees with their predetermined point of view. They are not a reliable witness to anything in this area of science.
ICR is like AiG, their “Tenets of Scientific Creationism” ensure that anything they produce is so biased that they cannot be relied on. To see just how biased and incompetent their work is read: Young-Earth Creationist ‘Dating’ of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals
rossum
L
larkin31
Guest
so? Explain what connection you see between this experiment and the age of the earth.
H
hugh_miller
Guest
This ia a photo of one of the 100 or so fossil human footprints excavated since July 1982. This 11 inch long human footprint impression was uncovered by moving a one ton rock in the foreground over three inches of clay on July 6, 1983. Both the distinct heel on the mold and the distinct human toes on the impression itself are at the normal angle of the modern human foot which can be observed. The aspect ratios of length of foot to width at the ball of the foot was exactly in the same ratio range as the modern human foot as were other aspects ratios such width of ball to width of heel.
This mold was made immediately after we were able to build a clay dam around the fooptrint to stop the water entering the footprint. This alleged 108 M year old Cretaceous rock has been tested for hardness and is harder than concrete. There were several witnesses to this discovery including myself as we all participated in removal of rock and clay. The detractors have never participated in an excavation of their own or with any other teams like a real scientist would on this Paluxy River ledge. This ledge is about 15 - 20 ft wide and 200 yards long. As I’ve posted many times the cast of the footprints in the river which the detractors dispute are in exhibit at the Glendive Montana Fossil and dinosaur museum.
This footprint and others which I shall try and post are evidences for man and dinosaur coexistence. Carbon-14 dating of carbonized wood between strata in the clay strata shows these prints were laid down only 1000’s of years ago. I hope that the picture is posted successfully. I’m not proficient at this picture posting game.
H
hugh_miller
Guest
Below is another fossil human footprint, this one 13 inches long called the Clark print after the Hydraulic Eng professor from UN of Illinois. He performs empirical investigations like a real scientist and has come every summer since about 1983. It is named after him because he helped excavate another 13 inch long one. It was he who established the hypothesis that the strata was laid down by huge tides. He is now in his 80’s, God bless him. This is not our best picture but there is a dinosaur footprint next to the human one; the 17 inch long dinosaur footprint was made after the human one came through as mud was pushed into the human one. Does this mean that man evolved before dinosaurs?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Musings:
The reports of the death of Big Bang theory have been greatly exaggerated. Arp’s contentions about redshift, so far as I can see, are not above dispute. One aspect of his counter-arguments that needs to be investigated is how many of his observations have been legitimately called into question as a result of the advances in astronomical instrumentation since Hapr’s earlier observations/interpretations. This matter needs to be researched by professional astronomers. I am looking to see if that has already been done.
Also, any scientific argument against Big Bang theory is not an argument in favor of YEC, except by a huge leap of imagination.
And websites that report Arp’s theory as identical with Hubble’s theory of the universe seem deliberately misleading since Hubble changed his position from his earlier theory. Recall that Einstein met with Hubble to review in person the evidence for redshift, at which time Einstein renounced his steady-state model. Lemaitre was present for the grand occasion of Einstein’s change in position.
The reports of the death of Big Bang theory have been greatly exaggerated. Arp’s contentions about redshift, so far as I can see, are not above dispute. One aspect of his counter-arguments that needs to be investigated is how many of his observations have been legitimately called into question as a result of the advances in astronomical instrumentation since Hapr’s earlier observations/interpretations. This matter needs to be researched by professional astronomers. I am looking to see if that has already been done.
Also, any scientific argument against Big Bang theory is not an argument in favor of YEC, except by a huge leap of imagination.
And websites that report Arp’s theory as identical with Hubble’s theory of the universe seem deliberately misleading since Hubble changed his position from his earlier theory. Recall that Einstein met with Hubble to review in person the evidence for redshift, at which time Einstein renounced his steady-state model. Lemaitre was present for the grand occasion of Einstein’s change in position.
C
Caritasregat
Guest
All I have to say is, read St. Thomas Aquinas; preferably the Summa Theologiae, the first part (prima pars). He’ll fix the whole issue of science “vs.” religion as well as causality.
To paraphrase:
Reason (even scientific) in no way contradicts faith. Infinite universe or not, God is still the cause.
This may sound condescending, but widen your minds and soften your heads.
I’m done here and will no longer waste my time.
H
hugh_miller
Guest
Real scientists are now testing Darwin and his hypothesis and finding it full of cracks and holes called anomalies (like these “pristinely inconvenient” dinosaur and human fossil footprints together). Therefore life from a common ancestor will crumble since the foundation of his theory is built on fleeting sands of insufficient time. The actual times required for the pure chance evolution (or a deity-designed univerese capable of such chance evolution) of inanimate matter into sentient beings are so long that the entire universe would have expanded to the near state of thermodynamic heat death (just as Christ said the heavens and the Earth will pass away, but his words will never pass away). 
L
larkin31
Guest
“pure chance evolution” is an inaccurate description of the process, so it is a strawman argument.
R
rossum
Guest
Here is a quote from a creationist website, Creation Ministries International (formerly AiG Australia):‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.
Source: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.
If the Paluxy tracks fail to convince your fellow creationists then why on earth do you think that they will convince sceptics? The Paluxy tracks are eroded dinosaur tracks, there are no human tracks in those rocks.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Then it is just as well that Darwin did not put forward a theory of “pure chance evolution”. Darwin’s theory included this thing called “natural selection” which is not a pure chance process. Do you think that it is “pure chance” that Polar Bears have white fur?
rossum
- Status