Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[Subduction Zone]

-----------
Apologise??? You should instead be grateful that I do the dirty devils advocate work for you of questioning the week links in your favorite theory.

ROFLMAO!! The chutzpah of some peope.

-------------------
Next time you are trying to answer a question which have more points, try to keep the context and premises together before answering.

Your fault for writing a terrible post. Try again.

 

[Native]

You can't find any dogma. You can't find any contradictions. You can't find any inconsistency. and you can't find any ad hoc assumptions. Instead of making false claims about others why not try to learn? Bring up your examples one at a time and I will explain to you why you were wrong. Or were you merely lying and not mistaken and are now afraid to meed a reasonable challenge?

-------------
This just show that you haven´t paid attention to what I am saying and arguing. I´ve come up with several examples but you automatically goes into deny mode. The only time you are awake is when you pathetically throw personal judgements at me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

-------------
This just show that you haven´t paid attention to what I am saying and arguing. I´ve come up with several examples but you automatically goes into deny mode. The only time you are awake is when you pathetically throw personal judgements at me.

No, you only demonstrated your ignorance. Bring them up properly, one at a time, and I will explain your errors to you. Your errors were clear to anyone that had a minimal education in the sciences.

 

[Native]

No, you only demonstrated your ignorance. Bring them up properly, one at a time, and I will explain your errors to you. Your errors were clear to anyone that had a minimal education in the sciences.

----------------
This is a very patronizing attitude and I don´t think it will help neither me or you to repeat my questions, because you automatically go in denial mode. Read the thread again if you wish to take any problems up.

 

[gnostic]

Actually, reflecting on this "electromagnetic fusion", I suppose that any chemical reaction involving making larger molecules from smaller one could be said to be a sort of electromagnetic fusion. After all, one takes two systems of charged subatomic particles and merges them to form one larger one, with a change in internal energy due to the way the electromagnetic interactions between them all change.

Chemistry is the world of EM interactions, basically........

The subject I brought up about the stars in this thread, was nuclear fusion inside the stars, and stellar nucleosynthesis. And in my replies to explain how the four fundamental forces or interactions worked together to “get started” and continued through most of its the life cycle.

In its fusion stage at the star’s core, neutrinos, positrons and gamma rays do decay from where the fusions occurred. And at each fusion (as the proton-proton chain reaction (PPCR) Nucleosynthesis diagram show, 3 stages of fusion) where a total of 6 hydrogen atoms will produce helium atom will release as well as enormous energy and heat.

That was all to explain how nuclear fusion work at the star core.

What I didn’t explain to Native, is how energy and heat are transferred to the outer layers (Radiative Zone and Convective Zone) before it reach the surface (Photosphere), and effecting the plasma of each outer layer, mostly made out of hydrogen.

I didn’t want to explain the outer layers and surface, because I was clarifying where Stellar Nucleosynthesis (nuclear fusion) was occurring.

In one of Native’s replies (older reply), he replied that nuclear fusion only occurring inside the Milky Way’s galactic centre. Which mean he really knows nothing about any of star’s processes.

The only natural thermonuclear fusion I know of, is located in galactic centers from where strong gamma rays beams out of the galactic poles as a cause of this central electromagnetic fusion which creates stars etc.

my replies were to emphasise and explain where naturally occurring nuclear fusions occurred inside the stars.

Native didn’t read my reply, the one with the large diagram of PPCR nuclear fusion until it was too late, because by the time he did read, I have chosen to ignore the ignorant fool.

 

[gnostic]

As I have explained a couple of days ago on another thread, for energy to exist there has to be a physical system to which that energy belongs. You cannot have energy on its own. It is a property of a system.

Physics certainly cannot explain the origin of the hypothesised Big Bang, which is thought to be how the initial physical system comprising the universe arose. However I think your expectations of physics are misplaced.

The role of science is to model the physical phenomena we observe so that we can explain them to the point of making reliable predictions of what further observations to expect. However, because science depends inextricably on observation, it is impossible for it to extrapolate very far beyond the observable evidence we have. Science cannot answer metaphysical questions, such as why is there something rather than nothing.

dfnj was replying to my post (reply to Native), where I was explaining to Native that EM force isn’t the only force to have real world effects.

So I provided one example that gravitational forces is involved and not EM forces: the effect of Moon’s gravity to the ocean tides with this post -

There is 4 fundamental interactions, because each of them have real world effects.

As an example, the Earth and Moon have their own masses, and therefore have different gravity. And due to the Moon’s orbit around the Earth, it has notable effects on the sea and ocean tides. That caused by gravity of the Moon, and it’s relative positions on the Moon’s orbit.

It is Moon’s gravitation fields that effecting the tides, not EM fields or EM radiations.

dfnj brought up nothingness:

If physicists were really good, they would explain why energy exists at all as opposed to nothingness. Just give us one good miracle and we can explain the rest is what the physicists say.

What does my post on moon and tides have to do with dfnj’s nothingness?

Anyway, I am glad that you responded to dfnj’s post...hence the “thumb up” for your good points.

 

[Subduction Zone]

----------------
This is a very patronizing attitude and I don´t think it will help neither me or you to repeat my questions, because you automatically go in denial mode. Read the thread again if you wish to take any problems up.

How is it patronizing? It is a genuine offer to help. I am not the only one that has made you aware of your ignorance in the sciences. And please, telling falsehoods a out others is a losing technique. I offered to explain your errors if you bring them up properly. I am offering to do the heavy lifting here, complaining about a minimal amount of homework is hypocritical on your part.

 

[dfnj]

Two huge problems with your statement, here.

First, if god put fake fossil and make fake carbon dating, then doesn’t that make God, the god of lies and deceptions.

That is purely a subjective judgment on your part. We do not know God's intention. Maybe God's intention is to create a world having the greatest possible test of someone's faith. By having fossil and carbon dating evidence is just a test.

I think the question is not whether God is lying or deceiving. I think important question here is CAN an omnipotent God create a Universe with fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. By the most common definition of omnipotence, I would say yes.

 

[dfnj]

What has this reply of yours have anything to do with what I wrote?

I did not mention "nothingness".

Sorry, but we are not talking about the same subject here, so I don't really have anything to say here.

Why are you bringing up nothingness?

Matters are not nothing. Particles are not nothing. Fields and waves are not nothing. Energy are not nothing. Forces are not nothing.

If I ask you for spanner, will you give a feather?

Either stay on topic, or explain why you need to bring nothingness on this conversation.

You were talking about the laws of physics. No problem, your topic is not very interesting anyway since you don't really have anything really meaningful to say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is purely a subjective judgment on your part. We do not know God's intention. Maybe God's intention is to create a world having the greatest possible test of someone's faith. By having fossil and carbon dating evidence is just a test.

I think the question is not whether God is lying or deceiving. I think important question here is CAN an omnipotent God create a Universe with fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. By the most common definition of omnipotence, I would say yes.

The problem is that you are saying that God could have lied. If he lied by planting false information why would you believe anything that God says? You are not being logically consistent.

 

[dfnj]

-------------
OH, but the cosmological scientists already have given a nice example of miracles: Big Bang

Whether the Earth is new or old really depends on how people think what created the laws of physics in the first place. Physics is great for making weapons of war and blowing stuff up. But when it comes to nature, physics really doesn't explain anything about nature. All physics does is create mathematics that most often matches nature's behaviors. Science explains "how" nature behaves but never "why". Why are the universal constants constant? Why did the Big Bang happen at all? Where did all the energy come from in the first place? I'm sick and tired of scientific dogmatists claiming their dogma is the only right dogma because they say it is. Prove it.

 

[dfnj]

Your inability to understand and your refusal to learn does not make the claims of others "dogma". Nor are assumptions allowed of the sort that you think there are. In fact everything in your post is ignorant and wrong and only demonstrates once again your lack of education.

You can't find any dogma. You can't find any contradictions. You can't find any inconsistency. and you can't find any ad hoc assumptions. Instead of making false claims about others why not try to learn? Bring up your examples one at a time and I will explain to you why you were wrong. Or were you merely lying and not mistaken and are now afraid to meed a reasonable challenge?

You only criticize and hate in other people what you do not like about your own character.

 

[dfnj]

As I have explained a couple of days ago on another thread, for energy to exist there has to be a physical system to which that energy belongs. You cannot have energy on its own. It is a property of a system.

Physics certainly cannot explain the origin of the hypothesised Big Bang, which is thought to be how the initial physical system comprising the universe arose. However I think your expectations of physics are misplaced.

The role of science is to model the physical phenomena we observe so that we can explain them to the point of making reliable predictions of what further observations to expect. However, because science depends inextricably on observation, it is impossible for it to extrapolate very far beyond the observable evidence we have. Science cannot answer metaphysical questions, such as why is there something rather than nothing.

So you admit science has limitations because it is based on models?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether the Earth is new or old really depends on how people think what created the laws of physics in the first place. Physics is great for making weapons of war and blowing stuff up. But when it comes to nature, physics really doesn't explain anything about nature. All physics does is create mathematics that most often matches nature's behaviors. Science explains "how" nature behaves but never "why". Why are the universal constants constant? Why did the Big Bang happen at all? Where did all the energy come from in the first place? I'm sick and tired of scientific dogmatists claiming their dogma is the only right dogma because they say it is. Prove it.

Physics still is useful in telling us the age of the Earth. How do you think that numerical dates are applied to strata? And physics is always explaining "why". You are merely complaining about currently unanswered questions. In other words you are trying to use an argument from ignorance fallacy.

And making false claims about others is a sin in almost any religion. You can't seem to name one proper "dogma" of science. Why would you make claims that you cannot support?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You only criticize and hate in other people what you do not like about your own character.

Definitely not the case. When I make claims I can support them. And I do not "hate". Again, why make claims about others that you cannot support?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you admit science has limitations because it is based on models?

Science has always had limitations, but not because it is based on models.

 

[dfnj]

Physics still is useful in telling us the age of the Earth. How do you think that numerical dates are applied to strata? And physics is always explaining "why". You are merely complaining about currently unanswered questions. In other words you are trying to use an argument from ignorance fallacy.

And making false claims about others is a sin in almost any religion. You can't seem to name one proper "dogma" of science. Why would you make claims that you cannot support?

I never said it was not useful. Do not put words in my mouth.

Ignorance fallacy or not, there are does exist questions that science does not have answer to right now. I never said it would never answer them.

False is this case is an opinion. A skunk can't smell his own stink. You just refuse to accept you have any dogmas at all that are based on unprovable truths. You are really no different than the most stubborn fundamentalist Christian in my opinion.

The next thing you are going to tell me is opinions can be objectively determined, your opinions are facts, and my opinions are lies. Sorry, my opinions are my own and I think yours are based on blind spots because you have such a strong belief in a particular ideology.

 

[dfnj]

Definitely not the case. When I make claims I can support them. And I do not "hate". Again, why make claims about others that you cannot support?

Therefore, your opinions are facts. That did not take long.

 

[dfnj]

Science has always had limitations, but not because it is based on models.

Therefore, science has no limitations, and your dogma is the only right one. Got it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said it was not useful. Do not put words in my mouth.[/quoite]
I didn't. You made this claim:

"Whether the Earth is new or old really depends on how people think what created the laws of physics in the first place."

That seems to me that you were trying to claim that physics could not be used to date the Earth. That would be wrong.

Ignorance fallacy or not, there are does exist questions that science does not have answer to right now. I never said it would never answer them.

Then why bring the claim up?

False is this case is an opinion. A skunk can't smell his own stink. You just refuse to accept you have any dogmas at all that are based on unprovable truths. You are really no different than the most stubborn fundamentalist Christian in my opinion.

Wrong again. You made a claim about me that was demonstrably false. And since you made the claim about dogmas the burden of proof is upon you. Once again, you are not reasoning logically here.

The next thing you are going to tell me is opinions can be objectively determined, your opinions are facts, and my opinions are lies. Sorry, my opinions are my own and I think yours are based on blind spots because you have such a strong belief in a particular ideology.

Not all opinions can be objectively determined, but some can be shown to be wrong. Now your error is a black and white fallacy. Meanwhile you continue to attack others and cannot support your claims.

If you want people to take you seriously you need to support your claims at times.