Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

I don't believe that I have to answer questions that are so easily explained by well-written and referenced articles. It would be a better use of everyone's time if those articles were actually read, as part of the flow of conversation, instead of constantly criticized for simply existing...

(Point of reference, I have been able to respond to sections of your links in previous engagements because I have actually taken the time to read them before responding to you. You have linked them, afterall, meaning that they are part of your statement or argument. I am generally well aware of the creationist position on certain topics, and don't need much more than a few paragraphs before I'm certain that I won't be reading anything new. But I still open them and read them so I can understand where you're coming from or what you're trying to say.)

To briefly address this part directly - yes. All objects in a solar system are an accumulation of various materials that were left over in the protoplanetary disk before forming into whatever their current iterations are. The materials that make up the Earth, the Moon, all of the other planets, moons, and all of the other system debris that currently orbits the sun are localized accumulations of the "dust" that began coalescing around our Sun as its mass (and thus gravity) increased. There is no other method by which these materials and objects could possibly exist if not for a previous synthesis in the belly of a former star.

For reference, and to make it clear that I am directly linking my explanation here to an article that I want you to read for any clarification that you might need, please see the following articles from Britannica:
nucleosynthesis | chemical process
accretion disk | astronomy
asteroid | astronomy

When you ask why gold isn't evenly distrubuted - you're actually asking why isn't anything evenly distributed or at least consistently accessible. To answer that question, you need to know a little bit about weights, densities, formation, and geology. It would take a bunch of links to make it all clear, so I'll simplify it as much as possible... Some stuff sank to the core. Some stuff couldn't because of barriers formed while cooling. Some stuff was converted to different substances due to geologic processes. And some other stuff we simply don't know about. (There are still places we haven't been and things we haven't found - meaning our map isn't complete.)

So there you go. In order for gold to have come to this planet by outside sources (solar objects like comets, meteorites, etc) they would have had to first been available for accumulation during the accretion process at the early stages of system formation - meaning the elements preexisted in the "dust" that would become everything we've ever known... (See how it all works together?)



The first part of your belief is accurate - that same process applies to every other element heavier than hydrogen and helium.

Gold, and all other elements, were formed under the same processes, basically the same way, just using different ingredients, quantities, temperatures, and pressures...

Another helpful article:
http://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf




One of those ideas is not like the others...



If you want to be taken seriously in conversation about these topics, then yes. I want you to read well-established scientific articles and discuss these topics with a basic level of proficiency. I would want that of anyone. If you have a like or fascination with space at all, then please spend more time learning about it and growing in that capacity. Just don't interject magic or ignorance where it doesn't belong. The reason that you can suggest in previous responses, for example, that Hubble photos from deep space are somehow images of the future is a good example of what happens when a mind is trying to make sense of something it doesn't yet grasp. That's not a dig. It's simply a true statement.

I have a cousin who thinks he can build an antigravity device using plans he found on the internet. We would both agree that there are some thing about basic science that he's overlooking, right? Correcting our thought processes is important.



"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."
Verifiable evidence for creationism?

The water on this planet, and all other bodies in the solar system, came from the same place that the gold did... from the "dust" of the accretion disk. It was all part of the dense grouping of particles that existed in our little corner of the Universe just before our Sun began it's life - a place already filled with ejected elements that were formed in the bellies of long-extinct stars.

>>easily explained by well-written and referenced articles<<

>>If you want to be taken seriously in conversation about these topics, then yes. I want you to read well-established scientific articles and discuss these topics with a basic level of proficiency. I would want that of anyone. If you have a like or fascination with space at all, then please spend more time learning about it and growing in that capacity. Just don't interject magic or ignorance where it doesn't belong. The reason that you can suggest in previous responses, for example, that Hubble photos from deep space are somehow images of the future is a good example of what happens when a mind is trying to make sense of something it doesn't yet grasp. That's not a dig. It's simply a true statement.<<

Britannica, yes. Wikipedia, no. I've read those articles now. I like the Haystack article. Ok. It's not like creation science makes up its own science. They look at the latest science and accept it if valid. Where they disagree, then they will write an article on it or even a single sentence hinting at what they find useful. In the case of gold, the issue is not with how the gold was created and got to earth. The big issue is that the earth was created already. So, they basically disagree with the nebula theory which Polymath257 believes. Now, since the time of creation there have been all the events that you and secular science describes and that is accounted, too. Today, the BBT is the prevalent theory and other theories (based on evo thinking) emanate out from it. Thus, the main disagreement is with that. It's explained in the Open Letter to the Scientific Community -- Open Letter to the Scientific Community . So there is no need for the condescension or thinking that we just believe in fairy tales (the fairy tales are the side of evolutionary thinking and evolution (biology) <== true dat). After all, who created modern science but theologians and who has the greater list of accomplishments.

Also, your posts are getting obnoxious and unreadable because I don't think you can think for yourself. I didn't just learn to regurgitate stuff in school. Teachers think I'm a great convergent thinker and I'm working on being more divergent. That's why I do creative writing as such as I'm not musically inclined or have talent in the arts. One side of my mother's side of the family had that. The other are in academia. I've work in computer science.

>>One of those ideas is not like the others...<<

Yes, I know that. I threw that in as what few creationists hypothesize. That is not found in the Bible although there are many verses with gold in it. I would have mentioned it if the origin was in there.

>>The water on this planet, and all other bodies in the solar system, came from the same place that the gold did... from the "dust" of the accretion disk. It was all part of the dense grouping of particles that existed in our little corner of the Universe just before our Sun began it's life - a place already filled with ejected elements that were formed in the bellies of long-extinct stars.<<

I leave it at that. I just wanted to know what you believed .

 

[Polymath257]

I think I've said that in other posts in that as the start of scientific knowledge is to look for the source. Let's stick to gold. The original source of it is debatable. You believe what Science Daily proposes in that meteors brought it to earth. That doesn't really give us a source. The two theories that provide the source are supernova, i.e. capable of forming heavy elements and its explosion can send it careening in space to an already formed earth. (Notice the difference between what creation science believes and the nebula hypothesis/theory.)

Yes, it mistakenly says that the Earth was already formed. it also claims that the gold was in meteors.

Some people believe in nebula and that gold was accumulated within the planet and is now in the core. I don't believe this.
And why not?

Now, there's another theory gold and other exotic radioactivity was caused by the collision of dead stars.

Ordinary gold is not radioactive. I have no doubt that it can be produced in collisions of neutron stars, but such collisions are *much* more rare than supernovas.

This is the American theory from Harvard-Smithsonian, c2013, and not the British one in the article you posted. It says that observing gamma ray bursts from GRB 130603B showed a different afterglow from the typical one. The light behaved as that from various exotic radioactive elements. One of which was gold. They estimate that the cache size is 10x that of the moon. That's a lot of bling.

Origin of gold is likely in rare neutron-star collisions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...9b6fe264871_story.html?utm_term=.bbd57985d1c2
Here is the original scientific article:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.3960.pdf

EDIT: Why am I giving more weight to this hypothesis than meteors? It says this is the first time they have direct evidence by the various radioactive elements observed in GRB 130603B.

Did you notice that the collisions from neutron stars have to seed nebula in the same way the supernovas do? The basic nebular hypothesis is still there both ways. It is more a question of where that nebula gets its heavier elements-from supernovas or from colliding neutron stars.

Did you notice that this pair of merging neutron stars was in a different galaxy? Or that this galaxy is rather far away?

Did you know that gamma ray bursts like the one in the article would also sterilize any nearby planet such as the Earth?

 

[james bond]

>>It's explained in the Open Letter to the Scientific Community -- Open Letter to the Scientific Community . So there is no need for the condescension or thinking that we just believe in fairy tales (the fairy tales are the side of evolutionary thinking and evolution (biology) <== true dat).<<

This is why I'm a lot hesitant to start talking with a (blank) university professor (saw him on the list of the top minds on the planet) on my cosmology ideas. If I told you which university, you will know who it is. I think he'll agree with me on the gold; I'm confident about that. But that's about it. I would think he's on the other side of the open letter, but who knows. He's Christian ha ha.

 

[james bond]

Yes, it mistakenly says that the Earth was already formed. it also claims that the gold was in meteors.


Ordinary gold is not radioactive. I have no doubt that it can be produced in collisions of neutron stars, but such collisions are *much* more rare than supernovas.

Here is the original scientific article:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.3960.pdf



Did you notice that the collisions from neutron stars have to seed nebula in the same way the supernovas do? The basic nebular hypothesis is still there both ways. It is more a question of where that nebula gets its heavier elements-from supernovas or from colliding neutron stars.

Did you notice that this pair of merging neutron stars was in a different galaxy? Or that this galaxy is rather far away?

Did you know that gamma ray bursts like the one in the article would also sterilize any nearby planet such as the Earth?

Thanks for the original GRB article.

>>Yes, it [strikeout]mistakenly[/strikeout] says that the Earth was already formed.<<

I'm sure jonathan180iq will be ecstatic to find that out about his theory.

This seeding is part of BBT, isn't it? What I got from Hawking was that a supernova exploded. Thus, you're sticking with nebular, I got creation and Hawking has supernova. The only thing I agree with is that this neutron collision was rare as was Hawking's supernova after the BBT. However, I'm not sure where it falls within the chronology of BBT. I'll look over GRB 130603B if anything new comes out.

 

[james bond]

>>The reason that you can suggest in previous responses, for example, that Hubble photos from deep space are somehow images of the future is a good example of what happens when a mind is trying to make sense of something it doesn't yet grasp. That's not a dig. It's simply a true statement.<<

Ha ha. I changed my mind. You're the perfect subject to discuss this with. Let's see how your mind thinks, jonathan180iq. Let's start with Flatland. One of the first questions that popped in my mind was how did the Flatlanders recognize each other when all they see are lines?

It says warning: don't try to understand how flatlanders see it may injure your brain at the beginning. Can you tell how they recognize people and objects in Flatland?

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for the original GRB article.

>>Yes, it [strikeout]mistakenly[/strikeout] says that the Earth was already formed.<<

I'm sure jonathan180iq will be ecstatic to find that out about his theory.

This seeding is part of BBT, isn't it? What I got from Hawking was that a supernova exploded. Thus, you're sticking with nebular, I got creation and Hawking has supernova. The only thing I agree with is that this neutron collision was rare as was Hawking's supernova after the BBT. However, I'm not sure where it falls within the chronology of BBT. I'll look over GRB 130603B if anything new comes out.

You are getting confused about timing. The seeding is NOT part of the Big Bang. it is from the supernova that is LONG after the Big Bang (about 9 billion years after).

The order is the following:

Creation/Big Bang (13.7 billion years ago)-----> Nebula (around 5-6 billion years ago)--->Supernova (around 5 billion years ago)--->collapse of nebula to form early sun and accretion disk (just after supernova)---> Formation of the Earth from accretion disk (4.5 billion years ago)

The original nebula was before the supernova (or neutron star collapse). The supernova was what 'pushed' part of the nebula into collapse to form the sun and the accretion disk. THe planets (including the Earth) formed from that accretion disk.

Neutron star collisions are much more rare than supernovas.

 

[Polymath257]

>>Yes, it [strikeout]mistakenly[/strikeout] says that the Earth was already formed.<<

[

Yes, it *was* a mistake. Remember that ALL of the heavier elements on Earth (everything past Helium) was formed in that supernova (or the star that exploded itself). That means the carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, silicon, iron, nickel, gold, uranium, etc EVERYTHING past Helium on the periodic table. Which is all but *two* of the elements in the periodic table.

 

[james bond]

Nope. If you think of it as a 4 dimensional construct, we still see the 3 dimensional cross section in the photos. And that 3 dimensional cross section is from the past because of the time it takes light to travel.



This is a bit garbled. You cannot go *at* the speed of light. You can go slightly less. If you go, say, at 99% of the speed of light and you go for an hour, then the people on Earth would age about 7 hours. But that isn't time travel.

This is my theoretical physics explanation. What explanation do you have? It's not an argument whether the object exists or not. We agree it exists, but I think we disagree on whether we are seeing a 4D or 3D object. If you think of the object in the photo is a 3D object, then we should be able to get there. However, since it is way out in deep space and the time it takes to get there is impossible at this time, it becomes a 4D object. What does this mean? It means that the direction of the object is 90 degrees perpendicular to us and we have to travel in a ship that can reach speed of light. Also, we are seeing the object as a 3D representation (actually 2D, but our minds add the dimension of depth to it to recognize its shape. However, the theory is that the 4D object will not look the same as the 3D representation of it, as the shape will be that of a hyper object such as a cube in 3D versus a Tesseract in 4D. So that is why I am saying the actual 4D object is in the future. The 3D representation of it is in the past.

For calculation purposes, we go slightly less, but it's close that it's neglible. This "is" time travel into the future. Everything on earth would have aged much more than you did. Now that you're back home, you've traveled into the future. As far as I know, this is the only time travel that has been demonstrated. It's relative time travel. I am not aware of any absolute time travel. That's why I said you can't travel in a negative direction of time (except through your memories and history). In order to do that, then there will have to be a physical universe that we can travel to -- a multiverse. Even if there is a parallel universe, how does it get created based on what we do on this universe?

 

[Polymath257]

This is my theoretical physics explanation. What explanation do you have? It's not an argument whether the object exists or not. We agree it exists, but I think we disagree on whether we are seeing a 4D or 3D object. If you think of the object in the photo is a 3D object, then we should be able to get there. However, since it is way out in deep space and the time it takes to get there is impossible at this time, it becomes a 4D object.

Um, no. it stays a 3D object whether or not we can get there.

What does this mean? It means that the direction of the object is 90 degrees perpendicular to us and we have to travel in a ship that can reach speed of light.

Gobbledegook here. The Eagel nebula is NOT 90 degrees to us (when we are looking at it???). No ship can reach the speed of light. We see it as it was about 7000 years ago---that is how much time it took for light to get from there to here.

Also, we are seeing the object as a 3D representation (actually 2D, but our minds add the dimension of depth to it to recognize its shape. However, the theory is that the 4D object will not look the same as the 3D representation of it, as the shape will be that of a hyper object such as a cube in 3D versus a Tesseract in 4D. So that is why I am saying the actual 4D object is in the future. The 3D representation of it is in the past.

More gobbledegook. If you want to think of it as a 4D object, that will include the object throughout time. Since it was destroyed by the supernova shock wave in the past, it no longer exists now. And certainly not in the future.

For calculation purposes, we go slightly less, but it's close that it's neglible. This "is" time travel into the future. Everything on earth would have aged much more than you did. Now that you're back home, you've traveled into the future.

Only in the sense that ALL of us travel into the future at the rate of 60 seconds every minute. With close-to-light-speed travel, there is just a difference of relative speeds (sort of). Proper time may depend on the path taken.

 

[james bond]

You are getting confused about timing. The seeding is NOT part of the Big Bang. it is from the supernova that is LONG after the Big Bang (about 9 billion years after).

The order is the following:

Creation/Big Bang (13.7 billion years ago)-----> Nebula (around 5-6 billion years ago)--->Supernova (around 5 billion years ago)--->collapse of nebula to form early sun and accretion disk (just after supernova)---> Formation of the Earth from accretion disk (4.5 billion years ago)

The original nebula was before the supernova (or neutron star collapse). The supernova was what 'pushed' part of the nebula into collapse to form the sun and the accretion disk. THe planets (including the Earth) formed from that accretion disk.

Neutron star collisions are much more rare than supernovas.

(My bad, I got the Hawking video of the Milky Way formation mixed up with the BBT. That started with a star explosion.)

Your story sounds like a fairy tale. Hawking has a similar fairy tale, but doesn't have the nebula or supernova. He does have 13.7 billion years ago and a single point.

I can believe that gold is finite on our planet because neutron star collisions are rare of starts in proximity.

 

[Polymath257]

(My bad, I got the Hawking video of the Milky Way formation mixed up with the BBT. That started with a star explosion.)

Your story sounds like a fairy tale. Hawking has a similar fairy tale, but doesn't have the nebula or supernova. He does have 13.7 billion years ago and a single point.

I can believe that gold is finite on our planet because neutron star collisions are rare of starts in proximity.

Well, the amount of gold would be finite whether it comes from supernova or colliding neutron stars. But either way, when the Earth formed, that gold (and other elements) was already there.

And, again, we can *see* these processes happening today in the Eagle nebula and even around close stars. These aren't just fairy tales. They are verified processes at work in the universe.

 

[Thief]

Well, the amount of gold would be finite whether it comes from supernova or colliding neutron stars. But either way, when the Earth formed, that gold (and other elements) was already there.

And, again, we can *see* these processes happening today in the Eagle nebula and even around close stars. These aren't just fairy tales. They are verified processes at work in the universe.

so.....you now claim we can......see.....?

 

[james bond]

Um, no. it stays a 3D object whether or not we can get there.


Gobbledegook here. The Eagel nebula is NOT 90 degrees to us (when we are looking at it???). No ship can reach the speed of light. We see it as it was about 7000 years ago---that is how much time it took for light to get from there to here.



More gobbledegook. If you want to think of it as a 4D object, that will include the object throughout time. Since it was destroyed by the supernova shock wave in the past, it no longer exists now. And certainly not in the future.


Only in the sense that ALL of us travel into the future at the rate of 60 seconds every minute. With close-to-light-speed travel, there is just a difference of relative speeds (sort of). Proper time may depend on the path taken.

At least, I have a theoretical physics explanation of everything we discussed and theoretical evidence to back it up. Maybe it's not correct. That's why it's just hypothesis. All you have is well, the 4th dimension could exist and if it did it would do these things to these polyhedrons and how they look in 3D vs 4D. What was all that about? Gobbledegook?

The idea of time and space is perpendicular to our 3D coordinates. If time is a direction, then it's out in outer space. It can't be a "parallel" universe, can it? And all the other branes or dimensions that are depicted in these theoretical discussion are parallel to our 3D "brane." You're hung up on the light. It doesn't matter as long as it's close and we can get there. Let's say we can go back in time as you seem to imply? Thus, like in those sci-fi movies let's say we go back in a jet to when the people were trying to build the first plane. People see a UFO flying and then we break the sound barrier. Somehow, they are able to record the event and then we fly off for parts unknown and somehow are able to return home. They have the recording of sound, time, place, duration. Even if they are able to piece it together, they cannot find us or catch up to us. It's impossible. Thus, we had to have been a 4D object in order to travel through time. If we were a 3D object, then it would have been impossible.

 

[james bond]

One theoretical explanation of creation of the universe. It takes a tremendous amount of energy that would have to be outside the universe itself. I noticed the BBT has what was there before the single point as timeless and spaceless and it was caused by invisible particles of matter and anti-matter. This matter and anti-matter would have to be nothing like we ever experienced and all-powerful. Contrary to this, creation states the source is described as immaterial. It is an energy source with enormous amount of power. It would have to be to provide for all the energy in the universe that exists today. If this all-powerful matter and anti-matter exists elsewhere, then why do not see other points of singularity? Assuming we can detect them, there has to be a source to provide the energy. That's what we have had to do with the LHC. If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, then the energy would have run out with gravity, but it's still expanding. The universe has complex mathematics associated with and the creation of our solar system is evidence that there was an intelligence behind it. Everything had to be in the right place and fine-tuned or else the universe would implode upon itself. This shows complexity and intelligence and design behind it. Creation has a sequence of events that show the world was created suddenly and seven days. These sequence of events has evidence that backs up the sequence and events by evidence found in the universe.

"I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program."

 

[leibowde84]

One theoretical explanation of creation of the universe. It takes a tremendous amount of energy that would have to be outside the universe itself. I noticed the BBT has what was there before the single point as timeless and spaceless and it was caused by invisible particles of matter and anti-matter. This matter and anti-matter would have to be nothing like we ever experienced and all-powerful. Contrary to this, creation states the source is described as immaterial. It is an energy source with enormous amount of power. It would have to be to provide for all the energy in the universe that exists today. If this all-powerful matter and anti-matter exists elsewhere, then why do not see other points of singularity? Assuming we can detect them, there has to be a source to provide the energy. That's what we have had to do with the LHC. If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, then the energy would have run out with gravity, but it's still expanding. The universe has complex mathematics associated with and the creation of our solar system is evidence that there was an intelligence behind it. Everything had to be in the right place and fine-tuned or else the universe would implode upon itself. This shows complexity and intelligence and design behind it. Creation has a sequence of events that show the world was created suddenly and seven days. These sequence of events has evidence that backs up the sequence and events by evidence found in the universe.

"I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program."

Doesn't this assume that the big bang was the beginning of everything? Now we know that assumption is not necessarily accurate, as there are many plausible theories where the big bang wasn't the absolute beginning of this universe.

 

[james bond]

Doesn't this assume that the big bang was the beginning of everything? Now we know that assumption is not necessarily accurate, as there are many plausible theories where the big bang wasn't the absolute beginning of this universe.

Atheists are wrong again? It's funny you're picking out my post and addressing the BBT to me. I'm the other side. Why not ask polymath257? I'm using Stephen Hawking to explain the BBT. He seems to think that gases or that which is gaseous and not matter and what was contained inside caused the BB. He doesn't really explain what it is except for the aftermath. As for antimatter, there is less of it than matter. Matter dominates. Then Hawking never mentions time even though it is implied the gases were immaterial -- timeless, spaceless, all-powerful. My guess he didn't want to say spirit ha ha. I didn't say matter for a reason because Hawking didn't explain what it was exactly.

The important thing to remember is at the beginning, God created time, space and matter all of which is described in detail in the Bible (and while the Bible isn't a science book, science backs up the Bible). Not so much Hawking nor the BBT. So what else do you have?

 

[gnostic]

I'm using Stephen Hawking to explain the BBT. He seems to think that gases or that which is gaseous and not matter and what was contained inside caused the BB. He doesn't really explain what it is except for the aftermath. As for antimatter, there is less of it than matter. Matter dominates. Then Hawking never mentions time even though it is implied the gases were immaterial -- timeless, spaceless, all-powerful. My guess he didn't want to say spirit ha ha. I didn't say matter for a reason because Hawking didn't explain what it was exactly.

Actually you are butchering Hawking. You are butchering science with your assumptions of what you think Hawking might be saying, and not actually reading what he is saying.

Second, a lot of Hawking's works are still hypothetical (and not testable, yet) and theoretical (mathematical-oriented, and again, not testable).

Lastly, gases are not immaterial.

Please cite sources that Hawking says gases are "immaterial"?

They are still matters, but just of different state, as opposed to solid, liquid or plasma state. But like all matters, gases have masses, therefore they are not immaterial. All gases contained electrons, nuclei, protons and (except for hydrogen) neutrons.

And gases are substances, or more precisely "matters"; they are not immaterial, nor are they - your deluded imaginary "spirit".

You don't know what you are talking about, jb.

You should learn basic physics and basic chemistry, before you make claims that you can't back. And you have shown that you have never understood the Big Bang, so that's another reading materials you should read.

 

[Polymath257]

Atheists are wrong again? It's funny you're picking out my post and addressing the BBT to me. I'm the other side. Why not ask polymath257? I'm using Stephen Hawking to explain the BBT. He seems to think that gases or that which is gaseous and not matter and what was contained inside caused the

Could you give the specific Hawking quote here? It seems you have *really* misunderstood him if you think he said that.

He doesn't really explain what it is except for the aftermath.

Depending on which stage of his career you got the quote from, it is quite possible he didn't think there *was* anything other than aftermath. If time begins at the BB, there is nothing before.

As for antimatter, there is less of it than matter.

This is true and is one of the larger mysteries right now. We know some differences between matter and anti-matter that might be relevant, but the specifics are far from clear.

Matter dominates. Then Hawking never mentions time even though it is implied the gases were immaterial -- timeless, spaceless, all-powerful. My guess he didn't want to say spirit ha ha. I didn't say matter for a reason because Hawking didn't explain what it was exactly.

He didn't say spirit because there is no evidence for a spirit. And it is quite clear you are not understanding something that Hawking is saying: he knows full well that gas is matter. Do you?

The important thing to remember is at the beginning, God created time, space and matter all of which is described in detail in the Bible (and while the Bible isn't a science book, science backs up the Bible). Not so much Hawking nor the BBT. So what else do you have?

Sorry, but this is wrong. Science does NOT support the story in the Bible. It hasn't done that for the last 400 years. There is, however, plenty of support for the BB: that the universe was once hot and dense and expanded to what we see today. What, if anything, was before that, we do not know because of lack of evidence.

 

[Thief]

Atheists are wrong again? It's funny you're picking out my post and addressing the BBT to me. I'm the other side. Why not ask polymath257? I'm using Stephen Hawking to explain the BBT. He seems to think that gases or that which is gaseous and not matter and what was contained inside caused the BB. He doesn't really explain what it is except for the aftermath. As for antimatter, there is less of it than matter. Matter dominates. Then Hawking never mentions time even though it is implied the gases were immaterial -- timeless, spaceless, all-powerful. My guess he didn't want to say spirit ha ha. I didn't say matter for a reason because Hawking didn't explain what it was exactly.

The important thing to remember is at the beginning, God created time, space and matter all of which is described in detail in the Bible (and while the Bible isn't a science book, science backs up the Bible). Not so much Hawking nor the BBT. So what else do you have?

if I may.....

God created movement
Man created the time

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think I've said that in other posts in that as the start of scientific knowledge is to look for the source.

Wonderful.
If that's the case, don't get so bent out of shape when I try to bring the more outlandish part of this conversation back to the origin on a sbustance (be it Gold or anything else)

Let's stick to gold. The original source of it is debatable. You believe what Science Daily proposes in that meteors brought it to earth. That doesn't really give us a source. The two theories that provide the source are supernova, i.e. capable of forming heavy elements and its explosion can send it careening in space to an already formed earth. (Notice the difference between what creation science believes and the nebula hypothesis/theory.)

Are you referring to the original source of gold on Earth or of gold in general?

The thing is, though, that the source of origin of gold isn't really debatable...
The processes that can create gold exist and are understood. The splitting of hairs that you seem caught up on about who prefers which delivery theory are both pointless and inaccurate. If it's shown that gold can be created in neutron collisions, then we know that gold can be created in neutron collisions. If it's shown that gold can be created in supernova, then gold can be created in super nova. If it's shown that gold was available during the accretion process and sank lower in the molten Earth than lighter elements, then gold was available during the accretion process and thus sank lower into the Earth than the lighter elements...

What we have is a comprehensive understanding of how any element (gold) became available on a planetary surface. Why in the world would you pigeon-hole a single process as the ONLY process?

The only ideas that need to be heartily rejected are those that have no substantiation - like deitic magic.

Some people believe in nebula and that gold was accumulated within the planet and is now in the core. I don't believe this.

Please explain why you don't believe this...
Explain why a heavy element sinking deeper into the molten Earth doesn't make sense to you.

Now, there's another theory gold and other exotic radioactivity was caused by the collision of dead stars. This is the American theory from Harvard-Smithsonian, c2013, and not the British one in the article you posted. It says that observing gamma ray bursts from GRB 130603B showed a different afterglow from the typical one. The light behaved as that from various exotic radioactive elements. One of which was gold. They estimate that the cache size is 10x that of the moon. That's a lot of bling.

Origin of gold is likely in rare neutron-star collisions

Like I said - comprehensive study and understanding.

Can this process create gold? Yes.
Can other processes create gold? Yes.

And?