Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[exchemist]

--------------
When you read posts of some debaters here, it seems that you can extend your example to count all over the place.

Your problem is you dismiss theories without understanding them, which is a stupid thing to do. You think people are telling you the theory must be right, when in fact they are simply telling you that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

--------------
Now HERE is an area where you show your real qualities: Pedantic fault-finder who ignores the asked question and ignoring critical links.

Hardly, you screwed up. You were talking about supernovae and the "Standard model" which would imply the "standard solar model". You later began yammering about other questions.

Yes, not everything is answered yet in the Standard Model for the Big Bang. That does not mean it is full of holes. You do not seem to understand what the latter phrase means. If you do not want people correcting you do not keep making statements that have such gross errors in them. Once again, ask questions politely and properly. That means no leading questions. Just simple honest questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's why I took the trouble to point out that "dogma" is not a dirty word. All it means is established opinion. Which of course exists in science, just as it does in music or French grammar.

It depends upon how one uses it. dfnj clearly means in a religious sense of right now matter what and we know that is not the case with science.

 

[exchemist]

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.


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.

Thanks for the summary of the, er, interaction - it's too much to call it a discussion, with someone like Native.

He doesn't understand how gravitation and kinetic energy (converted from gravitational potential energy) can, between them, overcome EM repulsion, if the masses are large enough. And he doesn't want to, because of his idee fixe. That's clear.

I'm just playing with what meaning could, by analogy, be attached to the notion of "EM fusion". Such things as neutralisation of ions or chemical synthesis reactions would seem to be the EM equivalent. The EM interaction is responsible for all of chemistry. But not physics, plainly!

 

[Native]

Your problem is you dismiss theories without understanding them, which is a stupid thing to do. You think people are telling you the theory must be right, when in fact they are simply telling you that you are wrong.

----------------
Welcome in the collective mob

Are you really that stupid to assume I´m stupid enough not to read what I am questioning?

As long as different cosmological theories isn´t proved in all accounts, all of them have problems which can be questioned. But then the mob really wakes up because it attacks their very identity. They/you are simply afraid of loosing face.

 

[Native]

Hardly, you screwed up. You were talking about supernovae and the "Standard model" which would imply the "standard solar model". You later began yammering about other questions.

Yes, not everything is answered yet in the Standard Model for the Big Bang. That does not mean it is full of holes. You do not seem to understand what the latter phrase means. If you do not want people correcting you do not keep making statements that have such gross errors in them. Once again, ask questions politely and properly. That means no leading questions. Just simple honest questions.

--------
More nitt-pickings. IMO you don´t understand any of my questions at all. You are just jumping around all of them with your besserwissen nitt-picking method.

 

[exchemist]

----------------
Welcome in the collective mob

Are you really that stupid to assume I´m stupid enough not to read what I am questioning?

As long as different cosmological theories isn´t proved in all accounts, all of them have problems which can be questioned. But then the mob really wakes up because it attacks their very identity. They/you are simply afraid of loosing face.

Not at all. You may well read lots of science - I don't know. What I can say is that, if you have, you have failed to take any of it in. That is plain, to us all, from the level of confusion and nonsense in your posts. Calling those of us who understand physical science a "mob" may make you feel better, in your intellectual bunker, but it does not make you look any more intelligent * .

P.S. It's "losing" face by the way, not loosing. To "loose" something means to set it free.


* English understatement

 

[Native]

Not at all. You may well read lots of science - I don't know. What I can say is that, if you have, you have failed to take any of it in. That is plain, to us all, from the level of confusion and nonsense in your posts. Calling those of us who understand physical science a "mob" may make you feel better, in your intellectual bunker, but it does not make you look any more intelligent * .

---------------
Why on Earth should I take the standing explanations in when my point is that I´m questioning some of the explanations?

A mob is a collection of people who bullies, often on the basis of intolerance and lack of an overall perception.

And notice that I put a after. I don´t FEEL bullied at all. When it comes to questioning theories which isn´t proven or directly contradicted, the collective bullying is just a royal trade mark.

Thanks for your correction of "losing" and "loosing", even if this also is pure nitt-picking as you surely understood the meaning.

BTW: I would like to see you express yourself in Danish

 

[Native]

OK, the topic in this thread is about "Young Earth - Old Earth" and we certainly came far around

Of course the Earth is fairly as old as the rest of the Solar System and this can only be understood when implementing the fact that the Solar System is an integrated part of the orbital motion in our Milky Way and most likely/logicaly also a result of the central formation in the Milky Way.

Thanks for our conversation for now

 

[exchemist]

---------------
Why on Earth should I take the standing explanations in when my point is that I´m questioning some of the explanations?

A mob is a collection of people who bullies, often on the basis of intolerance and lack of an overall perception.

And notice that I put a after. I don´t FEEL bullied at all. When it comes to questioning theories which isn´t proven or directly contradicted, the collective bullying is just a royal trade mark.

Thanks for your correction of "losing" and "loosing", even if this also is pure nitt-picking as you surely understood the meaning.

OK, enough of this idiocy.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Not apologies for disagreeing with me, or for you advocating your belief. I don't give a sh## if you disagree with me, I don't like you make false claims about how or where I get my knowledge.

I want apology for your paranoia tiresome use of the words directed at me, whenever accuse me of using "dogma" or me being "indoctrinated", whenever we disagree with each other.

When I am interested in subjects, I do my own researches. If I choose to use textbooks, or valid scientific sources from the web, I too make my own decision as to whether they have the evidences to back them up. That's not dogma, that not being indoctrinated.

I do the same research in science and myths, as I would do with history or art, or my job as programmer.

I am fed up with your false claims about me. No apology, no more me answering your questions in this thread. No apology, then you can go suck a lemon.

 

[Native]

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........

--------------------
But NOT when I am claiming this to count all over the place, right?

 

[Native]

I want apology for your paranoia tiresome use of the words directed at me, whenever accuse me of using "dogma" or me being "indoctrinated", whenever we disagree with each other.

When I am interested in subjects, I do my own researches. If I choose to use textbooks, or valid scientific sources from the web, I too make my own decision as to whether they have the evidences to back them up. That's not dogma, that not being indoctrinated.

-------------
It all doesn´t matter as long as you accept the conventions without questioning the logics.

 

[gnostic]

It all doesn´t matter as long as you accept the conventions without questioning the logics.

"Logic"?

You mean your "logic"?

You think I cannot question your logic?

Your logic is merely your opinion if you don't have the verifiable evidences to back it up.

Logic is not immutable or infallible, because all logic are man-made, whether a person is writing an essay, report, creating or solving equations, formulating hypothesis, starting a religion or a philosophy.

Everyone can make mistake, even if they attempt to use logic, because no logic is infallible.

The whole points of these debates, is to argue for or against one logic or the other.

In science, logic alone is not enough.

In science, you need some testable evidences or cite some sources that have testable data. The reason why science is so useful, is that current scientific evidences can always be corrected, updated or replaced, BUT only if the alternative theory have more conclusive verifiable evidences to back it up.

And that something that you don't understand.

If logic alone was the only way to accept hypotheses being true, then we would have a lot of rubbish theories.

Still no apology. Then I don't need to talk to you or answer your questions about the galaxy or universe or myths.

 

[exchemist]

--------------------
But NOT when I am claiming this to count all over the place, right?

Right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

--------
More nitt-pickings. IMO you don´t understand any of my questions at all. You are just jumping around all of them with your besserwissen nitt-picking method.

I love it. You are shown to be wrong and call it nit picking. Why not try to learn instead of broadcasting your lack of knowledge? You take it very personally when your errors are corrected and your flaws are pointed out. People would not be "attacking" you as a "mob" if you asked proper questions. For example why is the Standard Model so well accepted? Because right now it answers more questions than any other model and it has no major self contradictions. Is it perfect? Hardly, but it is the best answer we currently have and is much better than any other model out there today.

 

[Native]

Logic is not immutable or infallible, because all logic are man-made, whether a person is writing an essay, report, creating or solving equations, formulating hypothesis, starting a religion or a philosophy.

-------------
Most of the ancient religions are founded via intuition and observations of nature as such. This is in fact natural philosophy and natures infallible logic.

In modern cosmological times logics is confused to represent simple speculations which is why modern cosmology is hopelessly behind the ancient knowledge of everything.

 

[Native]

I love it. You are shown to be wrong and call it nit picking.

----------------
Yes I was wrong about who said a quote I mentioned. And you ignored the sentence because your focus is on what really doesn´t matter i.e. nitt-picking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

----------------
Yes I was wrong about who said a quote I mentioned. And you ignored the sentence because your focus is on what really doesn´t matter i.e. nitt-picking.

Hardly. You can't make a coherent post since you constantly deny the science that you do not understand. Why don't you try to learn just a little? Basic calculus is not that hard to understand and from that you can begin to understand how gravity works.

 

[Native]

You can't make a coherent post since you constantly deny the science that you do not understand.

---------
So you think you and others are entitled to judge what is right or wrong in modern cosmology and in my posts as long as there is NO theory which is correct in all matters?

You besserwissen nitt-picker