Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Dan From Smithville]

But it emits the radiation in the transition state from excited to neutral or from neutral to excited. Which means the hydrogen is ionized during the transition phase. Don’t try to play stupid...




Ionized gasses are electrons or pisitively charged atoms or negatively charged atoms.

Who you trying to fool? Yourself?

You didn’t learn, did you.

H II region - Wikipedia

“An H II region or HII region is a region of interstellar atomic hydrogen that is ionized.”

Deny reality to your hearts content.....


More than you are since they tell you in black and white that atomic hydrogen is ionized, yet you refuse to accept reality....



Lol, I can’t stop laughing...

Had you actually read and just stopped opening your mouth.....

Ionised Hydrogen | COSMOS

“Ionised hydrogen, commonly called HII (pronounced H-two), is a hydrogen atom that has lost its electron and is now positively charged.”



No, they are transitioning between excited states and neutral states. They don’t emit radiation because the are neutral. When they are neutral they are optically transparent.


No, they are visible because the hydrogen is not in a neutral state. Hydrogen in a neutral state is optically transparent...


Plasma makes up 99.9% of the universe....

The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target | Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute

“But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth’s protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma.”

Why are you the only one that fails to understand reality???? Even NASA understands.



And that’s at 2 million K. I asked you what about all that plasma down to 5,000 K the temperature of the suns surface that we can’t detect?

Twice the mass of the galaxy itself, just with that at 2 million K and higher.

So show me that it takes more than twice the mass of the galaxy in dark matter to make those numbers add up? Or are you just spouting personal belief with no numbers to back up anything you claim? As usual.... because Fairie Dust is your epicycles of the decade????

I did not think you were playing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but you are wrong as usual. It’s from star forming regions.....

You did not even read, or if you did understand, the very first sentence of the article that you linked

Says the guy that can’t understand the difference between neutral and excited..... so your opinion isn’t worth the space you used to type it.

Oh my! You have to be kidding. Neutral refers to the fact If it is an atom or an ion. Excited refers to the state an electron is in an atom. By definition an excited atom is still a neutral one. Thank Bog I put on my oven mitts.

I’m not the one that believes in Fairie Dust. That’s you.... trying to project your beliefs onto others as usual when you can’t defend your stance with actual science..... the mark of a battle already list...

Wrong, try again.

Says the person that doesn’t understand the difference between neutral and excited states. So your opinion wasn’t worth the space to type it.

You are serious it appears. Such a pity.

But then that’s why all of you fail to provide scientific links showing excited state are the same as neutral. Because we all know you can’t...

I will make sure to include one at the end of this post. I am too busy laughing right now.

That positive H II regions are everywhere, but then that’s why you ignored that because it told you it was an ionized state.......

Perhaps there are, do you have evidence of significant ones?

Scientific misfits one and all who understand nothing....

I see that you are talking about yourself again. And as promised:

Excited state - Wikipedia

That may be too difficult for you. Here is a very very short one:

Excited State

One last source:


HyperPhysics

 

[Polymath257]

But it emits the radiation in the transition state from excited to neutral or from neutral to excited. Which means the hydrogen is ionized during the transition phase. Don’t try to play stupid...

Nope. This is completely wrong. A hydrogen atom in an excited state still has its electron. That electron is not in the *ground* state for hydrogen, which is what it means to be in an excited state. To be ionized means it has lost the electron completely.

Ionized gasses are electrons or pisitively charged atoms or negatively charged atoms.

Who you trying to fool? Yourself?

You didn’t learn, did you.

H II region - Wikipedia

“An H II region or HII region is a region of interstellar atomic hydrogen that is ionized.”

Deny reality to your hearts content.....

I did not deny that. What I denied is that the majority of hydrogen is in HII regions. The vast majority of hydrogen is NOT ionized.

More than you are since they tell you in black and white that atomic hydrogen is ionized, yet you refuse to accept reality....

And I did not deny that ionized hydrogen exists. But it isn't the dominant form of hydrogen.

Lol, I can’t stop laughing...

Had you actually read and just stopped opening your mouth.....

Ionised Hydrogen | COSMOS

“Ionised hydrogen, commonly called HII (pronounced H-two), is a hydrogen atom that has lost its electron and is now positively charged.”

Yes, that is what it means to be ionized. Now, what does it mean to be in an excited state?

No, they are transitioning between excited states and neutral states. They don’t emit radiation because the are neutral. When they are neutral they are optically transparent.

Wrong, they are emitting photons because they are transitioning between excited states and *ground* states. Both the excited state and the ground states are electrically neutral.

No, they are visible because the hydrogen is not in a neutral state. Hydrogen in a neutral state is optically transparent...

But being in an excited state (where the electrons are in a higher energy orbital) is NOT the same as being ionized (where the electron is no longer bound to the nucleus). THAT is the fundamental mistake you are making here.

Those excited states of hydrogen do NOT make up a plasma.

Plasma makes up 99.9% of the universe....

The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target | Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute

“But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth’s protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma.”

Why are you the only one that fails to understand reality???? Even NASA understands.

And that’s at 2 million K. I asked you what about all that plasma down to 5,000 K the temperature of the suns surface that we can’t detect?

Twice the mass of the galaxy itself, just with that at 2 million K and higher.

So show me that it takes more than twice the mass of the galaxy in dark matter to make those numbers add up? Or are you just spouting personal belief with no numbers to back up anything you claim? As usual.... because Fairie Dust is your epicycles of the decade????

Well, let's see. The percentage of energy for ordinary matter in the universe as a whole is about 4%. That for dark matter is about 23% and the rest is dark energy. Hmmm....it certainly looks like the amount of dark matter is more than twice the amount of ordinary matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not think you were playing.

I have a feeling that the articles I linked will not help. He does not seem to realize that the various excited states are all neutral.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have a feeling that the articles I linked will not help. He does not seem to realize that the various excited states are all neutral.

He does seem to always be in an excited state and can hardly be said to be neutral. Perhaps it is projection on his part.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have a feeling that the articles I linked will not help. He does not seem to realize that the various excited states are all neutral.

I was not surprised to see him request my questions as if I had not provided them on multiple occasions. He conveniently misses them, but seems to read and respond to most of my other posts rather quickly, thus highlighting further, the exercise of his convenience.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yeah. Like I am going to fall for that again. I have already done this several times. I have grown tired of your avoidance and lies.

The only one avoiding is you avoiding pointing out your post where you asked the question or avoiding asking......

I think you are scared....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How have you determined that there are only 100 breeds of dog? How have you determined that there is no variation in the poodle or any of these other breeds? What is your evidence that poodle breeders save and report all the variation that results in their breeding of poodles? You must have this information to make and support your claims. Surely, you are not fibbing to us or hoping we will not look deeper are you?

Where is your evidence that I have ignored the different types of poodles? How is this not a personal attack, considering that I have not ignored different breeds of poodle?

How have you determined that these few different types of poodle that you now concede exist did not arise from mutations? Even if they are the result of interbreeding with other existing breeds, how is that an argument against evolution? Do you have evidence that the theory of evolution stipulates that variation come from a single source?

How is your argument using the poodle not an argument that variation is introduced from other sources outside of mutation and is in fact an argument against evolution? If evolution relies on variation and differential reproductive success through natural selection, why does that variation have to come from mutation only?

Aside from the massive projection you are illustrating for your own view, how is this not a personal attack on me? How does this support your oodles and oodles of never ending poodles model?

I agree. You seem to default to that position. On what basis do you feel that attacking other posters defends your position and demonstrates the validity of your claims? How is the reliance on a superficial set of circumstances associated with your view of poodle breeding looking at reality?

How is this post of yours that I am responding to anything more than just a personal attack on me? Where is the evidence that supports your assertion of oodles and oodles of never ending poodles? Do you think this post provides that evidence? Where?

So since you were too scared to provide the link I had to go search all your posts.....

Ahh, but it is you asserting oodles and oodles of never ending Poodles.....

Can you back up your assertion?????

I on the other hand claim only a limited variation of Poodles.

Since you insist on citations, here is mine, so where is yours? Mine says 5, if we count the two unofficially recognized ones, where does yours say oodles and oodles of never ending Poodles? Falsify facts often???? Yes, standard evolutionary fact checking - not at all.....

5 Types of Poodles: All Kinds of Fluffy Sizes, Shapes, and Colors!

And I stated over 100 breeds of dogs from wolves. Currently there are 202 recognized breeds and 211 and 344 breeds recognized by the international associations.

How Many Dog Breeds Are There? — AKC, KC & FCI Figures

But this only further harms your case as I could if I wished say 344 breeds from wolves and only 5 from Poodles, which just further backs up my claim that information has been lost the further from the original, not increased....

In fact there happen to be only 5 breeds of German Shepard’s too. Video in case you can’t read....

Or 4 types of pit bulls.

Pitbull Breeds & Types of Pitbulls – A List of EVERY Pitbull – All Things Dogs

All of which descended from wolves...

Yet each breed can produce 4 to 8 max......

Your claims are fictional as are all evolutionists claims, which can never be backed by science. So back your assertions there are multitudes of poodle variations........ or just admit you pulled your claims out of thin air. Standard evolutionary tactic....

But then you could have just looked up the answers yourself and saved yourself having to be shown wrong. But god forgive an evolutionist actually do research instead of just make bald faced claims... now that would be a novelty, actually doing research for yourself......

Well, where is your citation to back up your baseless claims??????

 

[Subduction Zone]

So since you were too scared to provide the link I had to go search all your posts.....

Ahh, but it is you asserting oodles and oodles of never ending Poodles.....

Can you back up your assertion?????

I on the other hand claim only a limited variation of Poodles.

Since you insist on citations, here is mine, so where is yours? Mine says 5, if we count the two unofficially recognized ones, where does yours say oodles and oodles of never ending Poodles? Falsify facts often???? Yes, standard evolutionary fact checking - not at all.....

5 Types of Poodles: All Kinds of Fluffy Sizes, Shapes, and Colors!

And I stated over 100 breeds of dogs from wolves. Currently there are 202 recognized breeds and 211 and 344 breeds recognized by the international associations.

How Many Dog Breeds Are There? — AKC, KC & FCI Figures

But this only further harms your case as I could if I wished say 344 breeds from wolves and only 5 from Poodles, which just further backs up my claim that information has been lost the further from the original, not increased....

In fact there happen to be only 5 breeds of German Shepard’s too. Video in case you can’t read....

Or 4 types of pit bulls.

Pitbull Breeds & Types of Pitbulls – A List of EVERY Pitbull – All Things Dogs

All of which descended from wolves...

Yet each breed can produce 4 to 8 max......

Your claims are fictional as are all evolutionists claims, which can never be backed by science. So back your assertions there are multitudes of poodle variations........ or just admit you pulled your claims out of thin air. Standard evolutionary tactic....

But then you could have just looked up the answers yourself and saved yourself having to be shown wrong. But god forgive an evolutionist actually do research instead of just make bald faced claims... now that would be a novelty, actually doing research for yourself......

Well, where is your citation to back up your baseless claims??????

I keep wondering how an increase in diversity is a "loss" of information? Only in the mind of a creationist.

 

[tas8831]

I on the other hand claim only a limited variation of Poodles....
Or 4 types of pit bulls...

All of which descended from wolves...

Yet each breed can produce 4 to 8 max......

Where did poodles and pit bulls come from first?

Oh, wolves.

How did that happen?

How did wolves possess the alleles for poodles and pitbulls and chihuahuas and such without exhibiting those phenotypes, and where are poodle alleles in modern day wolf genomes?

Do I have to present you with the relevant links again?

Oh, speaking of providing links - a bunch of them here for you to prove your claims for once...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So since you were too scared to provide the link I had to go search all your posts.....

This is a bald-faced lie. I posted them several times. I included the number of one post that had most of the questions and provided a link to it. You ignored that, like you had previously ignored the posts containing the questions.

Ahh, but it is you asserting oodles and oodles of never ending Poodles.....

I am summarizing your claim, giving those claims the homage they deserve and asking about YOUR oodles and oodles of never ending poodles. Try again. You claim that all breeding poodles gets is more poodles and no new variation that leads to anything else. You do not provide one piece of evidence. Not one. To support that claim.

Can you back up your assertion?????

I asked questions. Questions that you are not going to answer are you. You do understand what a question is? Right?

I on the other hand claim only a limited variation of Poodles.

About which I asked for your evidence. You claimed a lot. You supported none of it.

You claim much more than what you are stating here and it is that which I have questioned and am still not getting the answers that you should be able to provide. This was widely expected, but I thought you should have the opportunity to step up. Instead, you stepped into what the poodle left.

Since you insist on citations,

Another lie. I asked questions. I asked for the evidence.

here is mine, so where is yours?

I do not need to cite myself for the questions I asked. You did receive an actual education, did you not?

Mine says 5, if we count the two unofficially recognized ones, where does yours say oodles and oodles of never ending Poodles?

Not even a very good diversion, but very disingenuous.

Falsify facts often????

Are you talking to yourself? You must be. So your statement following is a confession. You have much like that to confess.

Yes, standard evolutionary fact checking - not at all.....

Is this a confession? It should be.

5 Types of Poodles: All Kinds of Fluffy Sizes, Shapes, and Colors!

And I stated over 100 breeds of dogs from wolves. Currently there are 202 recognized breeds and 211 and 344 breeds recognized by the international associations.

Fine. So you are claiming that this variation existed in wolves already? Where is your evidence of that? On what basis does your position that evolution requires only variation from mutations for it to take place?

I know. I know. You are going to pretend you did not see these questions.

How Many Dog Breeds Are There? — AKC, KC & FCI Figures

But this only further harms your case as I could if I wished say 344 breeds from wolves and only 5 from Poodles, which just further backs up my claim that information has been lost the further from the original, not increased....

It does no harm to my case. My case was asking you questions. This nonsense does not even support your case, so it can do no harm to my questions.

Do you really think you have the superior position, when you have to use lies and double talk to make your assertions and arguments?

In fact there happen to be only 5 breeds of German Shepard’s too. Video in case you can’t read....

Or 4 types of pit bulls.

Pitbull Breeds & Types of Pitbulls – A List of EVERY Pitbull – All Things Dogs

All of which descended from wolves...

Yet each breed can produce 4 to 8 max......

Based on what evidence? How have you established this? Can you show us the evidence that variation is limited in the way that you claim it is in dogs?

Your claims are fictional as are all evolutionists claims, which can never be backed by science. So back your assertions there are multitudes of poodle variations........ or just admit you pulled your claims out of thin air. Standard evolutionary tactic....

They are not claims. They are questions. They are not claims. Lying about that fact and misrepresenting them is not answering them, will not make them go away and does not relieve you of your burden of proof. It does establish a sound basis for concluding that you will lie vigorously when challenged.

Was your post written near sundown?

But then you could have just looked up the answers yourself and saved yourself having to be shown wrong. But god forgive an evolutionist actually do research instead of just make bald faced claims... now that would be a novelty, actually doing research for yourself......

Where would I have looked? You posted none of the material that I asked questions about anywhere. You still have not. You purposely left out my questions so that no one could compare your answers directly with them and you could avoid answering them. All this charade just to provide the false impression that this garbage you posted was actual answers.

Well, where is your citation to back up your baseless claims??????

I asked questions. I did not make claims. I am looking for your evidence to support your claims. Something that you did not provide here, while making up this tissue of lies that is more of a lengthy ad hominem attack than anything else.

I would not have guessed, that you could know less about biology than you do about physics. But that is the case. The one point where you proved me wrong.

Looks like I win again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The only one avoiding is you avoiding pointing out your post where you asked the question or avoiding asking......

I think you are scared....

You already made this lie. Make up a new one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I keep wondering how an increase in diversity is a "loss" of information? Only in the mind of a creationist.

I keep wondering how each new diversity loosing the ability to create more diversity is an increase in information.

But then like some you just can’t accept each of those diversities (breeds) is less capable of producing diversity. Why is reality so hard for evolutionists to accept?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is a bald-faced lie. I posted them several times. I included the number of one post that had most of the questions and provided a link to it. You ignored that, like you had previously ignored the posts containing the questions.

I am summarizing your claim, giving those claims the homage they deserve and asking about YOUR oodles and oodles of never ending poodles. Try again. You claim that all breeding poodles gets is more poodles and no new variation that leads to anything else. You do not provide one piece of evidence. Not one. To support that claim.

I asked questions. Questions that you are not going to answer are you. You do understand what a question is? Right?

About which I asked for your evidence. You claimed a lot. You supported none of it.

You claim much more than what you are stating here and it is that which I have questioned and am still not getting the answers that you should be able to provide. This was widely expected, but I thought you should have the opportunity to step up. Instead, you stepped into what the poodle left.

Another lie. I asked questions. I asked for the evidence.

I do not need to cite myself for the questions I asked. You did receive an actual education, did you not?

Not even a very good diversion, but very disingenuous.

Are you talking to yourself? You must be. So your statement following is a confession. You have much like that to confess.

Is this a confession? It should be.

Fine. So you are claiming that this variation existed in wolves already? Where is your evidence of that? On what basis does your position that evolution requires only variation from mutations for it to take place?

I know. I know. You are going to pretend you did not see these questions.
It does no harm to my case. My case was asking you questions. This nonsense does not even support your case, so it can do no harm to my questions.

Do you really think you have the superior position, when you have to use lies and double talk to make your assertions and arguments?

Based on what evidence? How have you established this? Can you show us the evidence that variation is limited in the way that you claim it is in dogs?

They are not claims. They are questions. They are not claims. Lying about that fact and misrepresenting them is not answering them, will not make them go away and does not relieve you of your burden of proof. It does establish a sound basis for concluding that you will lie vigorously when challenged.

Was your post written near sundown?

Where would I have looked? You posted none of the material that I asked questions about anywhere. You still have not. You purposely left out my questions so that no one could compare your answers directly with them and you could avoid answering them. All this charade just to provide the false impression that this garbage you posted was actual answers.

I asked questions. I did not make claims. I am looking for your evidence to support your claims. Something that you did not provide here, while making up this tissue of lies that is more of a lengthy ad hominem attack than anything else.

I would not have guessed, that you could know less about biology than you do about physics. But that is the case. The one point where you proved me wrong.

Looks like I win again.

I supported every one of my claims. Your oodles and oodles of Poodles do not exist except in your own mind.

You asked for verification Poodles were less capable of producing variation than wolves. We’re given it.

Then like all evolutionists continue to ignore reality for their fantasy world....

You people are so sad you can’t even accept reality....

Just pathetic your beliefs require you to hide so deep in wonderland....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I supported every one of my claims. Your oodles and oodles of Poodles do not exist except in your own mind.

You did not support any of your claims. NOT ONE. Your position does not exist except in your own mind.

You asked for verification Poodles were less capable of producing variation than wolves. We’re given it.

You did not provide anything of the sort. There was no verification. There was no support. NOT ANY.

Then like all evolutionists continue to ignore reality for their fantasy world....

Then like all creationists YOU continue to ignore reality for the Creationist Fantasy World with your Easy Pass.

You people are so sad you can’t even accept reality....

I feel very sorry for you. To have to lie and live in a fantasy world, because you cannot accept reality. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Just pathetic your beliefs require you to hide so deep in wonderland....

How sad and pathetic. You have to lie in order to maintain your beliefs. You have to live in a fantasy world that is the only place the meaningless garbage you posted can pass as answers and support for your fictional position.

I understand. You are frightened. Answering my questions will blow your limited, fallacious worldview to pieces and you cannot take that. You have to act as lowdown as you do as a defense mechanism. I pity you, but that does not mean I am not going to correct you are let you get away with all this fabrication that is not answers to any of the questions I asked.

I felt bad for you when you had pretend you had not seen my questions, including the post that repeated them, included the link and the number of the original post the questions came from. It was pathetic. I could not believe a grown adult had to resort to that sort of immature nonsense. It was sickening to see someone crawl like that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The claim that wolves have all the variation that we see in dogs already in their genome remains both silly and unsupported.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The claim that all the variation that we see in dogs is all the variation we are ever going to see in dogs remains unsupported.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The claim that evolution cannot happen unless the source of variation comes from mutations alone remains unsupported.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I could go on and on, producing a volume of the unsupported claims that remain unsupported and all from just one poster. I would need to produce a multi-volume set to capture the entire creationist response. Clearly, we do not get their best people posting on here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I keep wondering how each new diversity loosing the ability to create more diversity is an increase in information.

I keep wondering if we will ever see your evidence for this claim or is it just to be your pathetic fantasy camp answers.

But then like some you just can’t accept each of those diversities (breeds) is less capable of producing diversity. Why is reality so hard for evolutionists to accept?

I keep wondering where the evidence to support this claim is to be found. It has not been presented on here. Just a lot of pathetic, boring, diversionary nonsense and lies.

Are you going to have dinosaurs on your dinosaur ride Goose?