science vs religion?

[syo]

Nope its the answer you prefer to hear, not the correct answer.

You begin with a false premise, your history of rocks wrong. Some are formed from lava, (molten rock) . Others from compressed earth, dust, organ matter, other detritus.

But no matter how the rock was formed, the elements were all formed beginning with hydrogen

why hydrogen has the qualities it has? it was Born this way. by god

 

[`mud]

How long was that string of rocks ?
He created them and will always control them !!
So says Moses while he wrote his Good Book.
The story of stories of a superior control entity.
Alla the God of some, but Jesus not.
Some see nothing, and think ` _od` and wait for the savior.
Some find their rebirth is the Son, and believes He does.
And there's Nirvana, the end of all and the beginning anew.
Just another long line of rocks here also.
I also will be what islt I will be, non-cognizant,
dammmmm, I won't sense it, will I ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sorry, you got it wrong. During the formation of the universe2 some 14 billion years ago in the BB only the lightest elements were formed – hydrogen4 and helium5 along with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium. As the cloud of cosmic dust6 and gases7 from the Big Bang cooled, stars formed, and these then grouped together to form galaxies.

The other 86 elements found in nature were created in nuclear reactions in these stars and in huge stellar explosions known as supernovae.

Please make sure to credit your sources and put their unchanged words in quotation marks. I doubt that you were trying anything deceptive - you didn't even remove the numbers from the defined terms - although you did change some of the language slightly: "During the formation of the universe some 14 billion years ago in the so-called ‘Big Bang’, only the lightest elements were formed" You changed "so-called Big Bang" to "the BB."

Your source.

Helium-5 is unstable. What is seen from that stage is Hydrogen-1 (protons), Hydrogen-2 (Deuterium), Helium-3, Helium-4, Litium-6, Lithium-7, and very small amount of Berylium-9.

I think you misunderstood him. "hydrogen4 and helium5" are more like footnote numbers than isotope numbers.

 

[Repox]

Please make sure to credit your sources and put their unchanged words in quotation marks. I doubt that you were trying anything deceptive - you didn't even remove the numbers from the defined terms - although you did change some of the language slightly: "During the formation of the universe some 14 billion years ago in the so-called ‘Big Bang’, only the lightest elements were formed" You changed "so-called Big Bang" to "the BB."

Your source.



I think you misunderstood him. "hydrogen4 and helium5" are more like footnote numbers than isotope numbers.

Thanks for your comments. I have little or no interest in pursuing arguments pro or con for my idea for proving intelligent design. I am surprised it has generated so much hostility. It is not unlike topics scientists have pursued in studies of the universe. I am convinced God created the universe and designed it for a particular purpose with secondary reasons thereafter. However, I don't want to debate it with atheists. Often, the debates become hostile and very unproductive. Have a nice day.

 

[ChristineM]

why hydrogen has the qualities it has? it was Born this way. by god

Your evidence please.

My understanding is it is the simplest possible structure combining the particles that were ubiquitous at that time in the conditions. For this there is evidence. Origin of the Elements

Your turn

 

[ChristineM]

Please make sure to credit your sources and put their unchanged words in quotation marks. I doubt that you were trying anything deceptive - you didn't even remove the numbers from the defined terms - although you did change some of the language slightly: "During the formation of the universe some 14 billion years ago in the so-called ‘Big Bang’, only the lightest elements were formed" You changed "so-called Big Bang" to "the BB."

Your source.



I think you misunderstood him. "hydrogen4 and helium5" are more like footnote numbers than isotope numbers.

He won't even defend his own personal claims when questioned about their validated.

 

[syo]

Your evidence please.

My understanding is it is the simplest possible structure combining the particles that were ubiquitous at that time in the conditions. For this there is evidence. Origin of the Elements

Your turn

hydrogen needs an intelligent creator. it's logical, so it exists from something logical. hydrogen didn't happen by chance.

 

[ChristineM]

hydrogen needs an intelligent creator. it's logical, so it exists from something logical. hydrogen didn't happen by chance.

So still no evidence then?

The evidence suggests otherwise. Or perhaps you really do have counter evidence to disprove the hundreds of thousands of man years, vast quantities of highly specialised equipment and i have no idea how much money that helped build the evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thanks for your comments. I have little or no interest in pursuing arguments pro or con for my idea for proving intelligent design. I am surprised it has generated so much hostility. It is not unlike topics scientists have pursued in studies of the universe. I am convinced God created the universe and designed it for a particular purpose with secondary reasons thereafter. However, I don't want to debate it with atheists. Often, the debates become hostile and very unproductive. Have a nice day.

Thanks for the kind words.

I think that the objection to you was not a theist-atheist issue, but rather, just what it was that you were offering, which was a vague intuition that one could mathematically model some aspect of reality and uncover an intelligent designer in the process. They wanted some detail, and when you didn't provide any, they lost interest.

Yes, wild, untethered speculation is a good starting place for original ideas.

But until the idea can be shown to model some aspect of reality and be used to reliable come to conclusion or make decisions, the idea has no value. It is essential to eventually connect your idea to observations and explain why your idea accounts for them better.

Until you make that step, such ideas are just castles in the air.

 

[syo]

So still no evidence then?

The evidence suggests otherwise. Or perhaps you really do have counter evidence to disprove the hundreds of thousands of man years, vast quantities of highly specialised equipment and i have no idea how much money that helped build the evidence.

evidence is that hydrogen didn't form by chance. there is a mastermind behind it. it's impossible to happen by chance.

 

[ChristineM]

evidence is that hydrogen didn't form by chance. there is a mastermind behind it. it's impossible to happen by chance.

Show your evidence..

 

[syo]

Show your evidence..

what kind of evidence?

 

[ChristineM]

what kind of evidence?

Something that can be verified as factual would be good. You make the claim, you provide your evidence that validates your claim that your particular god (not one of the 4800 other non Hindu gods or the 330 million Hindu gods) and not natural processes made hydrogen.

 

[Repox]

Thanks for the kind words.

I think that the objection to you was not a theist-atheist issue, but rather, just what it was that you were offering, which was a vague intuition that one could mathematically model some aspect of reality and uncover an intelligent designer in the process. They wanted some detail, and when you didn't provide any, they lost interest.

Yes, wild, untethered speculation is a good starting place for original ideas.

But until the idea can be shown to model some aspect of reality and be used to reliable come to conclusion or make decisions, the idea has no value. It is essential to eventually connect your idea to observations and explain why your idea accounts for them better.

Until you make that step, such ideas are just castles in the air.

Yes, you got it. I didn't make a formal proposal, which is one reason why I got irritated. Everyone just jumped on it. I haven't given up on the idea. Being familiar with probability theory and conditions associated with the formation of the universe, I believe the idea has merit. I will not, however, present it on this forum.

 

[Polymath257]

it must have a start

Again, why do you believe that? And why must that start be the same for everything? And why must it be eternal? And why must it have intelligence?

NONE of the basic questions have been answered. You have a particular viewpoint but have clearly NOT considered any other.

 

[Polymath257]

I think you misunderstood him. "hydrogen4 and helium5" are more like footnote numbers than isotope numbers.

I should have caught that.....HYDROGEN 4????

 

[Polymath257]

evidence is that hydrogen didn't form by chance. there is a mastermind behind it. it's impossible to happen by chance.

Really? How sure are you of that? How, precisely, did that hydrogen form? What do you think was around before it?

BTW, these are questions that have already been answered. Your claims of understanding are seen to be fictional.

 

[Polymath257]

Please make sure to credit your sources and put their unchanged words in quotation marks. I doubt that you were trying anything deceptive - you didn't even remove the numbers from the defined terms - although you did change some of the language slightly: "During the formation of the universe some 14 billion years ago in the so-called ‘Big Bang’, only the lightest elements were formed" You changed "so-called Big Bang" to "the BB."

Your source.

And after looking at that source, he is getting his information from pretty unreliable places.

For example, it claims that most of the helium in our balloons was made in the first three minutes of the universe. Now, while most of the helium in the universe *was* formed that way, the primary source of helium *on Earth* is NOT the primordial helium from the Big Bang. That helium diffused out of our atmosphere long ago.

Most terrestrial helium comes as a by product of radioactive decay: alpha particles are helium nuclei.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, you got it. I didn't make a formal proposal, which is one reason why I got irritated. Everyone just jumped on it. I haven't given up on the idea. Being familiar with probability theory and conditions associated with the formation of the universe, I believe the idea has merit. I will not, however, present it on this forum.

You said, and i quote:-

I am proposing a theory based on statistics for proving the likelihood of intelligent design. It is not religiosity, it is mathematical.


If that was an error then it would have saved a lot of irritation all round (and personal insults) had you admitted it was an error rather than trying to manipulate definitions of words, lie, cast hyperbole and insult those who queried it.

 

[syo]

Something that can be verified as factual would be good. You make the claim, you provide your evidence that validates your claim that your particular god (not one of the 4800 other non Hindu gods or the 330 million Hindu gods) and not natural processes made hydrogen.

that's the point. god made the natural processes that made hydrogen. you want proof? the proof is that this is logical.