Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,005
Reaction score
667
Points
155
You seem to be saying scientists would cheat. If so, that is a weird thing to say.
No, their assumptions are wrong. GIGO. Speaking of weird, what were you saying about radiocarbon dating?

The following is from the site,
Her findings contradict evolution's long time. What if you found the long-time was wrong? What would be the repercussions? It's not just that, but we have the other evidence against long time such as recession of the moon, bent rocks, decaying magnetic field, and more.

Even when the secular/atheist scientists found things wrong with Darwin's theories, they had to keep re-doing their experiments just to make certain. Evolution is built-in science, but very little is true.

I said,
"That's a stretch. Creationism assumes a result and tries to rationalize it by dismantling scientific evidence."
Again, what you state and believe goes against the evidence.

You did not address Christians invented the scientific method. They created the God of the gaps policy, i.e. not to use God to demonstrate your thesis. What scientific method did evolutionists invent? Radiometric dating with wrong assumptions?

I think your distant starlight problem was answered.

The cosmic microwave background is so uniform. (He doesn't understand what it is.)
You think CMB isn't uniform? The big bang should have different temperatures as the universe expanded and doesn't account for the relative uniformity. It is radiation. We can discuss this, but you're glossing over a lot of things by just listing them.

I think Lisle is saying things were different in the past than in the present. However, I can't explain why speed of light would change.

Also, I think Lisle brings in God because the creation side has no offense. It's primarily defensive now as secular scientists try to debunk it, but have no scientific method to back their thesis. The creationists cannot propose their own theories in scientific journals, so it is basically one-sided and biased cosmology. For example, dark energy takes the place of God. I think we accept dark matter even though we cannot observe it.

There is evidence of the supernatural is life itself. The Bible states that it was God's breath that gave life to man. No one has been able to re-animate life nor create life. That is stuff of science fiction such as zombies, mad doctors, and Frankenstein. Evos just a have "faith-based" belief spontaneous generation (past) and abiogenesis (present) is true. Spontaneous generation was debunked by Pasteur. Abiogenesis has been debunked, as well. Only life creates life. For example, Darwin was already given the living cell to explain evolution.

Not only that, your side believes in multiverses and that it happens regularly. That sounds supernatural. The big bang with its infinite temperature, infinite density, and singularity sounds supernatural. We just found evidence of other planets and solar systems when that has been accepted for decades. The evidence that we saw and found led us to believe that to be the case. The same with gravitational waves. It's not the same with multiverses. It's the same with the big bang. The evidence goes against it, but the seculars just ignore evidence against it such as the CMB being uniform.

What about the Copernican principle? Do you believe the universe is uniform? Doesn't that ignore locality?
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
42,549
Reaction score
4,443
Points
1,870
No, their assumptions are wrong.
Idiotic YEC pap. You guys get confused on this point, because your minds are addled by religious nonsense. You start at your conclusion (your YEC dogma) and work backwards from there, making all manner of absurd claims to make reality fit your fantasy.

Scientists, on the other hand, arrived at their conclusions (that you call assumptions) through rigorous observation and testing.

You are so steeped in your magical fantasy that you cant imagine such a thing. So you try to make the world square peg fit into your round hole of narrow, magical dogma. And you are really falling on your face trying to do that.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,005
Reaction score
667
Points
155
Will probably be christians.
It is you. You are wrong again, exomoron :laugh:. Sir Isaac Newton invented the reflector. Johannes Kepler designed the convex lens and eyepiece. Galileo took the design of refracting telescope and improved it so it can be used in astronomy.
 

CWayne

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
2,649
Reaction score
1,135
Points
190

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
Her findings contradict evolution's long time. What if you found the long-time was wrong? What would be the repercussions? It's not just that, but we have the other evidence against long time such as recession of the moon, bent rocks, decaying magnetic field, and more.

Even when the secular/atheist scientists found things wrong with Darwin's theories, they had to keep re-doing their experiments just to make certain. Evolution is built-in science, but very little is true.
I don't want to get into all that gish gallop.

Creationists have no argument against C14 dating. The dating is accurate to over an order of magnitude beyond what creationists say the age of the universe is. They complain about diamond showing a 50,000 year life time. Even if that were not contamination it still shows an earth way older than 6,000 years. They have not answered that.

For Schweitzer's fossil, "three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%" -- 65 to 68 million years. That is four orders of magnitude greater than the creationist's 6 thousand years. Creationists have not successfully answered that.

You did not address Christians invented the scientific method. They created the God of the gaps policy, i.e. not to use God to demonstrate your thesis. What scientific method did evolutionists invent? Radiometric dating with wrong assumptions?
It doesn't matter who invented the scientific method. It's a non-sequitur. Radiometric dating is a geology science not a Darwinian evolution science. My point has nothing to do with evolution.

There is evidence of the supernatural is life itself. The Bible states that it was God's breath that gave life to man. No one has been able to re-animate life nor create life. That is stuff of science fiction such as zombies, mad doctors, and Frankenstein. Evos just a have "faith-based" belief spontaneous generation (past) and abiogenesis (present) is true. Spontaneous generation was debunked by Pasteur. Abiogenesis has been debunked, as well. Only life creates life. For example, Darwin was already given the living cell to explain evolution.
Evolution again. You are deflecting from the subject of dating the history of the planet and universe.
Not only that, your side believes in multiverses and that it happens regularly. That sounds supernatural. The big bang with its infinite temperature, infinite density, and singularity sounds supernatural. We just found evidence of other planets and solar systems when that has been accepted for decades. The evidence that we saw and found led us to believe that to be the case. The same with gravitational waves. It's not the same with multiverses. It's the same with the big bang. The evidence goes against it, but the seculars just ignore evidence against it such as the CMB being uniform.

What about the Copernican principle? Do you believe the universe is uniform? Doesn't that ignore locality?
First not all physicists believe in multiverses, etc. Everyone knows the COBE satellite shows nonuniformities. Look up the MOND theory.

Again those are not arguments concerning the age of the earth or universe. You have a tendency for gish gallop. You don't want to focus on the science of dating the universe. The video on the young earth that you cited had no quantitative science; only vague possibilities that are replete with contradiction.
.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
A lot of very cool stuff going on in Astronomy.
I wasn't expecting much from the video, but I have to admit the animations blew my mind.

One amazing thing is that in 1.2 million years a star with 60% mass of the sun is going to pass by at the distance of the Kuiper belt. What the presenter did not say is that it will totally destroy the orbits of our planets.

.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
42,549
Reaction score
4,443
Points
1,870
A lot of very cool stuff going on in Astronomy.
I wasn't expecting much from the video, but I have to admit the animations blew my mind.

One amazing thing is that in 1.2 million years a star with 60% mass of the sun is going to pass by at the distance of the Kuiper belt. What the presenter did not say is that it will totally destroy the orbits of our planets.

.
Well that's terrifying. Really?
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
Well that's terrifying. Really?
Of course I'm not terrified. It would be a real fun thing to see.
Which part? The freezing to death, or being burned alive?
Both may happen if it produces an earth elliptical orbit with a large eccentricity. The fun thing would be to see that star whiz by and light up the night for a few days.

Only future generations would see the total annihilation of earth because the star most likely would spawn a smallish perturbation. The butterfly effect would do the rest. Multibody problems can have surprising endings. However it would take many generations for it to become devastating. (I think.)
 

CWayne

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
2,649
Reaction score
1,135
Points
190
A lot of very cool stuff going on in Astronomy.
I wasn't expecting much from the video, but I have to admit the animations blew my mind.

One amazing thing is that in 1.2 million years a star with 60% mass of the sun is going to pass by at the distance of the Kuiper belt. What the presenter did not say is that it will totally destroy the orbits of our planets.

.
Well that's terrifying. Really?
What is terrifying about it? I won't be around to see it. LOL

Someone else problem. Besides, it is likely we'll be out among the stars by then anyway, providing we survive that long.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,005
Reaction score
667
Points
155
Creationists have no argument against C14 dating. The dating is accurate to over an order of magnitude beyond what creationists say the age of the universe is. They complain about diamond showing a 50,000 year life time. Even if that were not contamination it still shows an earth way older than 6,000 years. They have not answered that.
I didn't even mention Gish. He talked about proteins and was right about a lot of stuff. He just talked fast. As for the diamonds showing 50,000 years, it's closer to a young earth than evos claim that they are 1-2 billions years old. I wonder why you left the last part out haha.

""Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1-2 billion years old and related to the Earth's early history. Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years--a far cry from the evolutionary billions!"

Six Evidences of a Young Earth

For Schweitzer's fossil, "three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%" -- 65 to 68 million years. That is four orders of magnitude greater than the creationist's 6 thousand years. Creationists have not successfully answered that.
You say that creationists do not have answers, but you haven't explained the soft tissue and C-14 remaining in the dinosaur fossils. With radiocarbon dating, they measured 40,000 years for dinosaur fossils.

It doesn't matter who invented the scientific method. It's a non-sequitur. Radiometric dating is a geology science not a Darwinian evolution science. My point has nothing to do with evolution.
Sure, it does. It means the Christians use real science for creation science and not fake science like big bang, multiverses, search for aliens, and assume we'll find aliens. Will you admit that after 70 years of failure by SETI that there are no aliens? If you could show any of this by the scientific method, then the religions that think science is important won't think you are just spewing hot air.

Now, you're saying it is a non-sequitur. I'm not sure how you get that?

First not all physicists believe in multiverses, etc. Everyone knows the COBE satellite shows nonuniformities. Look up the MOND theory.

Again those are not arguments concerning the age of the earth or universe. You have a tendency for gish gallop. You don't want to focus on the science of dating the universe. The video on the young earth that you cited had no quantitative science; only vague possibilities that are replete with contradiction.
The nonuniformities are what the creation scientists are saying. They state that the uniformity isn't true like those who believe in the Copernican principle. Instead, the universe in non-uniform when it comes to planet, stars, moons, and other space bodies. It is based on locality. Do you not believe in the Copernican principle?

What is uniform is temperature throughout the universe which goes against the big bang and the high temperature.

I did address the radiometric dating with C-14 dating. What God stated was he will keep some things to himself so we will never know the true age of the Earth and universe using science. You were complaining about 6,000 yrs vs 50,000 yrs and dino fossils of 40,000 years.

We do not know how the universe works right now, but the cosmology is between Copernican principle vs the Anthropic principle. Remember, I stated God is dark energy, but we do not know what the dark matter is and what they are doing. We only see so much of the universe. Anyway, the main takeaways from Lisle is that the past was different than the present.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
42,549
Reaction score
4,443
Points
1,870
We do not know how the universe works right now, but the cosmology is between Copernican principle vs the Anthropic principle.
What a steaming pile of meaningless nonsense. It's like someone merged a random word generator and a mentally challenged ferret.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
653
Points
255
Creationists have no argument against C14 dating. The dating is accurate to over an order of magnitude beyond what creationists say the age of the universe is. They complain about diamond showing a 50,000 year life time. Even if that were not contamination it still shows an earth way older than 6,000 years. They have not answered that.
I didn't even mention Gish. He talked about proteins and was right about a lot of stuff. He just talked fast. As for the diamonds showing 50,000 years, it's closer to a young earth than evos claim that they are 1-2 billions years old. I wonder why you left the last part out haha.

""Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1-2 billion years old and related to the Earth's early history. Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years--a far cry from the evolutionary billions!"

Six Evidences of a Young Earth

For Schweitzer's fossil, "three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%" -- 65 to 68 million years. That is four orders of magnitude greater than the creationist's 6 thousand years. Creationists have not successfully answered that.
You say that creationists do not have answers, but you haven't explained the soft tissue and C-14 remaining in the dinosaur fossils. With radiocarbon dating, they measured 40,000 years for dinosaur fossils.

It doesn't matter who invented the scientific method. It's a non-sequitur. Radiometric dating is a geology science not a Darwinian evolution science. My point has nothing to do with evolution.
Sure, it does. It means the Christians use real science for creation science and not fake science like big bang, multiverses, search for aliens, and assume we'll find aliens. Will you admit that after 70 years of failure by SETI that there are no aliens? If you could show any of this by the scientific method, then the religions that think science is important won't think you are just spewing hot air.

Now, you're saying it is a non-sequitur. I'm not sure how you get that?

First not all physicists believe in multiverses, etc. Everyone knows the COBE satellite shows nonuniformities. Look up the MOND theory.

Again those are not arguments concerning the age of the earth or universe. You have a tendency for gish gallop. You don't want to focus on the science of dating the universe. The video on the young earth that you cited had no quantitative science; only vague possibilities that are replete with contradiction.
The nonuniformities are what the creation scientists are saying. They state that the uniformity isn't true like those who believe in the Copernican principle. Instead, the universe in non-uniform when it comes to planet, stars, moons, and other space bodies. It is based on locality. Do you not believe in the Copernican principle?

What is uniform is temperature throughout the universe which goes against the big bang and the high temperature.

I did address the radiometric dating with C-14 dating. What God stated was he will keep some things to himself so we will never know the true age of the Earth and universe using science. You were complaining about 6,000 yrs vs 50,000 yrs and dino fossils of 40,000 years.

We do not know how the universe works right now, but the cosmology is between Copernican principle vs the Anthropic principle. Remember, I stated God is dark energy, but we do not know what the dark matter is and what they are doing. We only see so much of the universe. Anyway, the main takeaways from Lisle is that the past was different than the present.
You don't understand the limits of Carbon dating. Read this again:

"Doing carbon 14 dating on dinosaur fossils often gives dates of 20,000-40,000 years old, and trying to carbon date things like graphite and diamond often gives dates of around 50,000 years old. That is exactly what we expect when a dating method is pushed to its limits and beyond...at around 50,000 years old it is less than one C14 in 300 trillion."

"the air, the water, and the ground are swimming in modern levels of C14, and it takes only the merest bit of modern contamination to make something made of solid carbon (e.g. graphite or diamond) that is a million years old look like it is 50,000 years old.

"contamination with modern carbon is unavoidable, and the effects of that contamination become dominant for more ancient samples. We are essentially guaranteed to come up with an apparent “date” of 15,000-60,000 years, no matter how much older the sample actually is. That is the simple physical reality of carbon dating
"

You are going in circles.
 

toobfreak

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
27,812
Reaction score
10,475
Points
910

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
42,549
Reaction score
4,443
Points
1,870
Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets

Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?
Nobody with a brain ever doubted that virtually every star out there has a system of planets around them!
Right, it was in the sci-fi, long before we ever actually saw an exoplanet. As if it was a foregone conclusion. Like black holes.
 

toobfreak

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
27,812
Reaction score
10,475
Points
910
Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets

Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?
Nobody with a brain ever doubted that virtually every star out there has a system of planets around them!
Right, it was in the sci-fi, long before we ever actually saw an exoplanet. As if it was a foregone conclusion. Like black holes.
I'm talking about plain logic, not sci-fi. Everything we know about planetary science points to the inevitability of planets as the accretion of the leftover remains not swept up in the initial stellar formation. Let me put it to you this way, show me a list of stars that have been proven NOT to have any planetary bodies?! Hmm?
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,005
Reaction score
667
Points
155
You don't understand the limits of Carbon dating. Read this again:
Haha. I just told you that we aren't ever going to know the exact age of the Earth and universe using science. Do you think science makes this claim? If you do, then you do not understand science. How many times has the age of the universe and Earth changed using secular methods? OTOH, creation states the universe and Earth are the same ages and we can't really change our position. The estimates may not be exact, but it is still a young Earth and universe versus two different old Earth and universe. The old Earth and universe were assumed in order to fit evolution. Thus, it's your side that uses circular logic of fitting long time to evolution. Were you not able to ascertain this? I don't think you did.

Sure, the creation scientists and I understand the limits of C-14 dating, but how do you explain the remaining C-14? It isn't contamination. The scientists who take the measurements would know how to handle this. Can you think outside the box? What you don't understand is the limits of radiometric dating and making wrong starting assumptions. It was done in order to fit evolution because evolution needed long time. This also explains why I brought up evolution, but this went :aug08_031:. Who came up with the first long time age of the Earth and universe? You should know this if you understand your radiometric science.

Moreover, we did not even get to the names of these radiometric ages? What are they called? Name a few. Hint:


If you trace the etymology of most of these names such as Cambrian, Devonian, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and so on, then you will find it has to do with location. It has nothing to do with chronology.

Also, I don't think that it registered that the past was different from the present in your mind.

We never even got to the magnetic field. That is another big part of the creation cosmology. The magnetic field is weakening and will be gone in around 20,000 years. This is another reason the universe and Earth are young. We'd all be burnt to a crisp from the solar radiation if it were old. Can you get your mind around a young Earth or are you going to claim it is just religion? I didn't even argue religion. I used the supernatural, i.e. creation, which is a lot different than just the natural. That's why making the point that Christians invented the scientific method is important. This is why I mentioned:

"There is evidence of the supernatural is life itself. The Bible states that it was God's breath that gave life to man. No one has been able to re-animate life nor create life. That is stuff of science fiction such as zombies, mad doctors, and Frankenstein. Evos just a have "faith-based" belief spontaneous generation (past) and abiogenesis (present) is true. Spontaneous generation was debunked by Pasteur. Abiogenesis has been debunked, as well. Only life creates life. For example, Darwin was already given the living cell to explain evolution."
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,005
Reaction score
667
Points
155
I'm talking about plain logic, not sci-fi. Everything we know about planetary science points to the inevitability of planets as the accretion of the leftover remains not swept up in the initial stellar formation. Let me put it to you this way, show me a list of stars that have been proven NOT to have any planetary bodies?! Hmm?
There are a lot of planets without a star, but usually a star has a planet nearby. I think the astronomy pointed towards being able to prove it one day and we have. We also have the 4th dimension which needs to be validated, but the evidence of that points to it existing. What about gravity? Certainly, we know it exists and now have demonstrated gravitational waves. What about the magnetic field? We have evidence for it, but do not understand it, as well.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top