Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Polymath257]

No, you're missing my point completely. We may well be arguing creation vs evolution. What is the supernova and what is it made up of? That which comprises biological life?

Huh? Supernova are when stars explode. They are a process in how stars change over time. The nuclear reactions in that explosion are what form gold.

No, supernova are not alive. They are not formed, nor do they constitute biological life. The *only* connection I can see is that the carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements in our bodies (except hydrogen) were formed either in the interior of stars or in supernova explosions.

 

[james bond]

Huh? Supernova are when stars explode. They are a process in how stars change over time. The nuclear reactions in that explosion are what form gold.

No, supernova are not alive. They are not formed, nor do they constitute biological life. The *only* connection I can see is that the carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements in our bodies (except hydrogen) were formed either in the interior of stars or in supernova explosions.

Just leave out the ad hominems. Yes, my point was all of those. Carbon is what we are made of and what protozoa eat. We know a supernova explosion can cause this. (The theory was there was one or a few that just happened to hit the earth with gold and precious metals.) Now, this gives us a source but not a planet to take advantage of it according to evolutionary thinking. What else does Hawking tell us?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just leave out the ad hominems.

There were no ad hominems.

I'm noticing a dramatic increase in people referencing "ad hominems" without really understanding what one is...

 

[Polymath257]

Just leave out the ad hominems. Yes, my point was all of those. Carbon is what we are made of and what protozoa eat. We know a supernova explosion can cause this.

OK, first, ALL life on earth is carbon based.

Second, the carbon (and all other elements before iron on the periodic table) was not made primarily from a supernova. It was made in the interior of the star *before* the supernova. It was then dispersed via that supernova.

(The theory was there was one or a few that just happened to hit the earth with gold and precious metals.)

Not quite. The actual theory is that the nebula from which our solar system was born was hit by the wave from the supernova. The Earth formed quite a bit after than wave went through.

Now, this gives us a source but not a planet to take advantage of it according to evolutionary thinking. What else does Hawking tell us?

Right. The formation of the Sun, Earth and the rest of the solar system out of that nebula is a different process. We can see that same process operating in, for example, the Orion nebula today.

 

[Polymath257]

Just leave out the ad hominems.

Where was there an ad hominem?

 

[james bond]

Where was there an ad hominem?

I'm the one who knows about supernovas and bring it up and use Hawking to explain. Yet, your condescension that I do not know a supernova is alive is quite clear. Moreover, you point out that it wasn't the explosion, but my point was that it caused the scattering of the elements that we are interested in. Also, how does the gold land on earth in your earth forming scenario? The scattering of the gold explains many things (which is interesting, but not the point of this supernova discussion).

What else does Hawking say about the supernova and the explosion or do you have other youtubes explaining the universe? However, I'm more interested in what Hawking specifically found.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm the one who knows about supernovas and bring it up and use Hawking to explain. Yet, your condescension that I do not know a supernova is alive is quite clear. Moreover, you point out that it wasn't the explosion, but my point was that it caused the scattering of the elements that we are interested in. Also, how does the gold land on earth in your earth forming scenario? The scattering of the gold explains many things (which is interesting, but not the point of this supernova discussion).

The gold is in the nebula from which the Earth and solar system form. So it is incorporated into the Earth as the Earth forms.

What else does Hawking say about the supernova and the explosion or do you have other youtubes explaining the universe? However, I'm more interested in what Hawking specifically found.

I don't know what Hawking specifically says. He didn't find much related to the mechanisms of supernova (he mainly deals with aspects of gravity and quantum mechanics). I don't know if he has done *any* research on the mechanisms of supernova. He was *reporting* what others have found, though.

There were aspects of what you said that suggested misunderstandings of what the science says. For example, the claim that the gold 'hit the Earth'. You also jumped between supernova and biological life as if the supernova was *made* of the same things as biological life. It isn't. Instead, the basic elements for life (as well as the other elements that are not required for life) were formed or distributed in the supernova.

 

[james bond]

The gold is in the nebula from which the Earth and solar system form. So it is incorporated into the Earth as the Earth forms.



I don't know what Hawking specifically says. He didn't find much related to the mechanisms of supernova (he mainly deals with aspects of gravity and quantum mechanics). I don't know if he has done *any* research on the mechanisms of supernova. He was *reporting* what others have found, though.

There were aspects of what you said that suggested misunderstandings of what the science says. For example, the claim that the gold 'hit the Earth'. You also jumped between supernova and biological life as if the supernova was *made* of the same things as biological life. It isn't. Instead, the basic elements for life (as well as the other elements that are not required for life) were formed or distributed in the supernova.

Interesting about the nebula. I think from what you describe that you believe in the nebula theory (vid below for those following). What I meant was the theory of how it plopped into the earth since the earth was already here. Guess we disagree here. Never thought an interest in gold and precious metals/stones would lead back to creation vs evolution. Anyway, most of it ended up inside the earth. For example, we have a motherlode in California. One of the things was we found it on the coastline forced up from the global flood. Or secular scientists claim an underseas earthquake. Another example of catastrophism, oh well .

Hawking's an interesting character. That video I posted of his interview with Richard Dawkins says it all for me. (I assume that vid was shot in the UK since they're both British.) He's a real atheist he-man. He doesn't obsess over that which he disavows. I'm sure he has more about the universe since he believes in the multiverse. Will have to find out more about him. Read a few of his books over Dawkins ha ha.

EDIT: According to the nebula theory, where did all the water (on the surface and inside) come from?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907132044.htm

 

[Polymath257]

Interesting about the nebula. I think from what you describe that you believe in the nebula theory (vid below for those following). What I meant was the theory of how it plopped into the earth since the earth was already here. Guess we disagree here. Never thought an interest in gold and precious metals/stones would lead back to creation vs evolution. Anyway, most of it ended up inside the earth. For example, we have a motherlode in California. One of the things was we found it on the coastline forced up from the global flood. Or secular scientists claim an underseas earthquake. Another example of catastrophism, oh well .

Hawking's an interesting character. That video I posted of his interview with Richard Dawkins says it all for me. (I assume that vid was shot in the UK since they're both British.) He's a real atheist he-man. He doesn't obsess over that which he disavows. I'm sure he has more about the universe since he believes in the multiverse. Will have to find out more about him. Read a few of his books over Dawkins ha ha.

EDIT: According to the nebula theory, where did all the water (on the surface and inside) come from?

Well, we see nebula today where there is star formation (Orion nebula and Eagle nebula have very good Hubble pictures). So we can actually see this part of the process in action.

Orion Nebula - Wikipedia
Pillars of Creation - Wikipedia

We also know of stars nearby with rings of gas and dust orbiting them where planets are newly formed (Epsilon Eridani is a very close one--only 10 light years away).

Protoplanetary disk - Wikipedia
Epsilon Eridani - Wikipedia

So the basic processes are being witnessed in other places today.

These nebula contain large amounts of water (usually in the form of ice) as well as ammonia, methane, and other chemicals. These will get incorporated into the planets when they form.

So the gold, the uranium, the water, the carbon, the iron, all the chemical elements you see around you, as well as the smaller molecules (such as water) were part of the nebula before the solar system started to form.

 

[james bond]

Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907132044.htm

I think your gif should be under the wikipedia article. What a piece of crap encyclopedia that is. I've got an account so can change it to what I want it to say. Usually anything that doesn't fit the liberal screech will be removed. I've been using Britannica. It's like night and day. Only use wiki for the links.

 

[james bond]

Well, we see nebula today where there is star formation (Orion nebula and Eagle nebula have very good Hubble pictures). So we can actually see this part of the process in action.

Orion Nebula - Wikipedia
Pillars of Creation - Wikipedia

We also know of stars nearby with rings of gas and dust orbiting them where planets are newly formed (Epsilon Eridani is a very close one--only 10 light years away).

Protoplanetary disk - Wikipedia
Epsilon Eridani - Wikipedia

So the basic processes are being witnessed in other places today.

These nebula contain large amounts of water (usually in the form of ice) as well as ammonia, methane, and other chemicals. These will get incorporated into the planets when they form.

So the gold, the uranium, the water, the carbon, the iron, all the chemical elements you see around you, as well as the smaller molecules (such as water) were part of the nebula before the solar system started to form.

I thought you were going to say that ha ha. Thanks to Mr. Hawking for giving me the heads up. If you look at the gold and how it's located in certain countries and areas, then you know that it was expelled from outer space into the earth. We would find gold everywhere if Nebula. That's based on observation. Moreover, the amount of water we have on the planet is so much that no other planet has it. Hawking confirms this by his fine-tuning and multiverse argument which I posted already, so I post for the crowd here. To balance it out, I post the fine-tuning argument by Eric Metaxas.

Fine-Tuning: Design or Multiverse? - Richard Dawkins & Stephen Hawking

Does Science Argue for or against God?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think your gif should be under the wikipedia article. What a piece of crap encyclopedia that is. I've got an account so can change it to what I want it to say. Usually anything that doesn't fit the liberal screech will be removed. I've been using Britannica. It's like night and day. Only use wiki for the links.

Had you actually read the link, I'd give you credit for a critique of it.

Regardless...
nucleosynthesis | chemical process
gold (Au) | chemical element
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907132044.htm

 

[jonathan180iq]

Moreover, the amount of water we have on the planet is so much that no other planet has it.

Patently false statement...

Water, Water Everywhere on Dwarf Planet Ceres
The Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water
23 Places We've Found Water in Our Solar System
Extraterrestrial liquid water - Wikipedia

 

[james bond]

Gas tends to expand instead of contract. To form a star, a cloud must be dense enough to collapse and put tremendous pressure so that the interior is compressed and becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to start. Most gas clouds have a tendency to expand rather than contract. Thus the hypothesis isn't really feasible. Next.

The Nebular Hypothesis
Nebular hypothesis - creation.com

Pièrre Simon Laplace: The Nebular Hypothesis

Origin of the Solar System
Origin of the Solar System

 

[jonathan180iq]

The Nebullar Hypothesis
Nebular hypothesis - creation.com

Pièrre Simon Laplace: The Nebular Hypothesis

Origin of the Solar System
Origin of the Solar System

Are you seriously going to critique Wikipedia links in one post and then support your stance using AIG and Creation.com in another?

The Nebular Hypothesis.... ?!?

Jonathan Sarfati
"Dr Sarfati has been a Christian since 1984. He has long been interested in apologetics, the defense of the faith, and was a co-founder of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (New Zealand). Creation vs evolution is of course a vital area, because of the ramifications for the doctrines of Creation, the Fall which brought death into the world, and their links to the doctrines of the Incarnation, Atonement and Bodily Resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ."
(This is called bias...just in case you weren't aware.)

With a pair of decent binoculars I can direct you to functioning nebulae at this very moment where you can observe the act of stellar and systemnal formation for yourself. To assume that the Earth, and the Solar System that it resides in, is somehow independent of all other Universal processes is a special kind of deluded. It's that mentality which allows otherwise intelligent people to believe in things like "Fine Tuning." It's an incredibly self-centered view of existence that completely rejects almost everything we know about Cosmological research.

 

[james bond]

Had you actually read the link, I'd give you credit for a critique of it.

Regardless...
nucleosynthesis | chemical process
gold (Au) | chemical element
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907132044.htm

Just what do you want me to read? Make a statement, so I can look it up.

As for your Mars gif, those aren't water lines. Their made by the wind blowing the sand. This looks more like water lines.

Furthermore, we've been looking for Martian microbes since the 1970s. Isn't it time to put our money elsewhere? I rather colonize the moon and space stations. Obama wanted to colonize a distant asteroid, but that sounds like crackpot.

 

[james bond]

Are you seriously going to critique Wikipedia links in one post and then support your stance using AIG and Creation.com in another?

The Nebular Hypothesis.... ?!?

Jonathan Sarfati
"Dr Sarfati has been a Christian since 1984. He has long been interested in apologetics, the defense of the faith, and was a co-founder of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (New Zealand). Creation vs evolution is of course a vital area, because of the ramifications for the doctrines of Creation, the Fall which brought death into the world, and their links to the doctrines of the Incarnation, Atonement and Bodily Resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ."
(This is called bias...just in case you weren't aware.)

With a pair of decent binoculars I can direct you to functioning nebulae at this very moment where you can observe the act of stellar and systemnal formation for yourself. To assume that the Earth, and the Solar System that it resides in, is somehow independent of all other Universal processes is a special kind of deluded. It's that mentality which allows otherwise intelligent people to believe in things like "Fine Tuning." It's an incredibly self-centered view of existence that completely rejects almost everything we know about Cosmological research.

I'm not sure what your purpose is? Certainly, you didn't answer my question about where the gold is if Nebula.

Are you trying to show that this is how earth formed or that what your binoculars are telling you will become a sun or planet? How many billions of years will this take? We can't do time-elapsed photography on it. It's worse than watching paint dry.

We have some strange wind whipped phenomena on earth, but it's not going to form some huge self-igniting ball that will continue for billions of years..

 

[jonathan180iq]

Just what do you want me to read? Make a statement, so I can look it up.

I want you to understand the process of complex chemical origin before you start having debates about it on the internet... I want you to read the links that have been provided to you that you can approach a conversation with at least an introductory level of understanding of the topic.

For example, if you want to debate @Polymath257 about where surface gold came from, you need to understand how ALL heavy metals were synthesized to begin with, don't you think? As it stands, you don't even recognize that your claims of bombardment contradict your argument for planetary formation using Creationist models... (Where did those meteorites and asteroids come from?) That's a problem in regular conversation, but an even bigger issue in debate. (It's what deductive reasoning is all about. If you can't think property - what does that say about your conclusions?)

I don't think you're being intellectually dishonest. I think you're just plainly ignorant of the topics you wish to discuss, which can be remedied - but you have to actually read about the topics for that to happen.

As for your Mars gif, those aren't water lines. Their made by the wind blowing the sand. This looks more like water lines.

This is another example of what I'm talking about.... You don't even recognize that you're sharing the same phenomena, on the same planet, taken by the same camera and calling it two different things, do you?

Both images were taken by the HiRISE camera aboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO). One image comes from Horowitz Crater; the other from Newton Crater... Explain to me, Mr. Bond, how one is "wind blowing the sand" and one is "water flow".

Also, you're ignoring that fact that both images discredit your argument that water exists on Earth and nowhere else... because of fine tuning.

NASA - Image Gallery

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm not sure what your purpose is? Certainly, you didn't answer my question about where the gold is if Nebula.

I did answer those questions - you just need to take an extra 1:30 out of your response time to at least browse the links that are provided to you...

And you aren't thinking big enough.

How did gold end up on the objects that crashed into the hardened Earth if NOT nebula?

Are you trying to show that this is how earth formed or that what your binoculars are telling you will become a sun or planet? How many billions of years will this take? We can't do time-elapsed photography on it. It's worse than watching paint dry.

...you don't have to do time elapsed photography. You just need to understand wavelengths and use a little spectrometry.

Proof That Stars Form When Clouds Collide

The formation of stars

Stars bursting into life in the chaotic Carina Nebula

Evidence for recent star formation seen at Milky Way's centre - physicsworld.com

The top image captures visible light; the bottom, infrared.
(Please read at least the Hubble Links)

We have some strange wind whipped phenomena on earth, but it's not going to form some huge self-igniting ball that will continue for billions of years..

WHAT?!?
...Why in the world would anyone assume that wind whipping dust up on the surface of a planet would somehow begin the process of nuclear fission and ignite a new star? What are you even talking about?