| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| lets play " whack a moehle " | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 12 2009, 09:34 PM (1,918 Views) | |
| the breeze | Apr 18 2009, 11:10 PM Post #51 |
the breeze
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We live in a Special Solar System, Too We can extend this argument of design from the universe to the solar system itself. When we look at the solar system, we discover that we have a heavenly body problem. It's not that easy to get the right galaxy. Life can only happen on late born stars. If it's a first or second-generation star, then life is impossible because you don't yet have the heavy elements necessary for life chemistry. There's a narrow window of time in the history of the universe when life can happen. If the universe is too old or too young, life is impossible. Only spiral galaxies produce stars late enough in their history that they can take advantage of the elements that are essential for life history, and only 6% of the galaxies in our universe are spiral galaxies. Of those 6%, you must go with galaxies that produce all of the elements that are essential for life. It's not that easy. Besides Hydrogen and Helium, the other elements are made in the cores of super giant stars. Super giant stars burn up quickly; they're gone in a just a few million years. When they go through the final stages of burning up their fuel, they explode ashes into outer space, and future generations of stars will absorb those ashes. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 18 2009, 11:13 PM Post #52 |
|
Deleted User
|
More misunderstanding of WAP. |
|
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 19 2009, 07:27 AM Post #53 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well... isn't that special!?! |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 19 2009, 07:31 AM Post #54 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Now, breezy, ask yourself (or, better yet, the person who wrote this crap) how long did it take for those first and second generation stars to live their lives and evolve (yes, stars and galaxies evolve) into the novae and supernovae to create the heavy elements essential for life. You think all this took place in the last 6,000 years? |
![]() |
|
| the breeze | Apr 19 2009, 09:40 PM Post #55 |
the breeze
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Births & Deaths of Multiple Stars Required to have Metals in Earth's Crust When those stars go through their burning phase, they will take that heavy element ash material. This time when they explode, they make a whole bunch of material, capable of forming rocky planets and supporting life chemistry. But we want these supernovae exploding early in the history of the galaxy. We don't want them going off now. If the star Cereus goes Super Nova, we're in serious trouble because it's only eight light years away. It would exterminate life on our planet. We observe in our galaxy that there was a burst of Super Nova explosions early in its history, but it tapered off to where it isn't a threat to life that is now in existence. The Super Nova explosions took place in the right quantity and in the right locations so that life could happen here on Earth. What does location have to do with it? Life is impossible in the center of our galaxy, or in the heel of our galaxy. It's only possible at a distance 2/3 from the center of our galaxy. Mormon Astronomy - Accurate or not? That's why I'm not a Mormon. Mormons tell us that life originated on a master planet right smack at the center of our galaxy. That's probably also why I've never met a Mormon astronomer. The stars at the center of our galaxy are jammed so tightly together that the mutual gravity would destroy the planetary orbits. Moreover, their synchrotron radiation would be destructive to life molecules. But we don't want to be too far away from the center, either. If we get too far away, then there aren't enough heavy elements from the exploded remains of supernovae to enable life chemistry to proceed. There's one life essential element that the supernovae do not make, however, and that's Fluorine. Fluorine is made only on the surfaces of white dwarf binaries. A white dwarf is a burned out star. It's like a cinder in a fireplace, just glowing. Orbiting this white dwarf is a star that hasn't yet exhausted its nuclear fuel. It's an ordinary star, like our Sun. The white dwarf has enough mass relative to the ordinary star orbiting around it that it is capable of pulling mass off of the surface of the ordinary star and dragging it down so that it falls on its surface. When that material falls on the surface of the while dwarf, it ignites some very interesting nuclear reactions that produce Fluorine. We need a white dwarf binary whose gravitational interactions between the white dwarf and the ordinary star are such that a strong enough stellar wind is sent from the white dwarf to blast the Fluorine beyond the gravitational pull of both stars, putting it into outer space, so that future generations of stars can absorb it. Then we have enough Fluorine for life chemistry. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 19 2009, 10:30 PM Post #56 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh breezy... that is, without a doubt, the funniest article you've yet posted! You'd do better if you understood at least SOME of what you cut and paste! Then you might be able to discern the difference between science and scientific illiteracy. Stars don't "burn." You are going back to Lord Kelvin's time when he showed that the burning of a star would consume the star's mass far too quickly to allow an old universe. Stars fuse hydrogen into helium and helium into heavier elements as they move away from hydrogen fuel as the star ages. The elements necessary to create "bunch of material, capable of forming rocky planets and supporting life chemistry." are not necessarily created in supernovae explosions. Supernovae are necessary to create elements with a heavier atomic weight than iron. Many rocks are composed mostly of lighter elements. The most common rocks on the earth are quartz and feldspar - neither requiring atoms heavier than iron. Quartz is made of silicon (atomic number 14) and oxygen (atomic number 8). Iron has an atomic number of 26. No supernovae necessary to create quartz in planetary crusts. I like this one!
Supernovae are not a temporal event, but determined by the mass of the parent star and the existence of a companion star. Whether we want them "going off now" or not is irrelevant for they are cooking off all around the universe. Oh... and there is no star named "Cereus". Cereus is a plant like the nightblooming cereus. The star the scientifically illiterate author was reaching for is Sirius. As for fluorine, you can read about the nucleosynthesis of the atom here. http://www.gemini.edu/node/99
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 19 2009, 11:07 PM Post #57 |
|
Deleted User
|
Breeze, when are you going to get back to proving Creation Science? |
|
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 20 2009, 02:26 AM Post #58 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The poor guy has no idea what he's trying to prove or disprove. His is probably the biggest and most sustained posting history of crap I've seen since watching bot floods on Usenet newsgroups. Breezy has no idea why posting against mainstream science (and doing so so poorly) does nothing to support creation science. Cutting and pasting articles about long discredited "problems with science" do nothing to support his position and just tend to cause most of the people on here to tune him out as just another nut job. We know there is no way to prove creation science. "God did it" is not amenable to either proof or disproof. It is a statement of faith whose logic instantly collapses with the asking "Who created god?" The Primum mobile is a creation of man's imaginative limitation rather than a law of the universe. WHY does there have to be a first cause or an unmoved mover? The Cosmological Argument tells us nothing about the universe, but lots about man's inability to comprehend infinite series. Even the creation scientists like Behe understand this and attempt to circumvent the logical conundrum by resorting to Intelligent Design as demonstrated by irreducible complexity. Which is, as we noted before, nothing more than an argument from ignorance. Any "science" that starts out as nothing more than an argumentum ad ignorantiam probably doesn't have the legs to make it to the finish line. ID and IC definitely fall into that category. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 20 2009, 02:58 AM Post #59 |
|
Deleted User
|
Yes, but he believes these pastes speak for him. Yesterday he actually posted his own words: "i maybe do cut and paste too much. but to me its like magic, i can see something i agree with and can post like ' boom ' its a thrill for me. but i will try to cut back." Magic. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Apr 20 2009, 04:50 AM Post #60 |
|
Deleted User
|
Came across this. reminded me of Bruce's pastes.
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




12:41 AM Jul 14
