Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)

[Hydra009]

CNN and ABC are liberal lying fake news propaganda machines

Funny how this sentiment almost exclusively comes from people whose own sources are more partisan, less credible, and less honest.  It almost seems like a form of projection.

[SGOS]

Given.
I had the idea that your philosophy, lets use this word in the place of religion, are the same as Dawkins', Singer, and all the Atheists of high caliber that places my God equal to a racist, murderous, slave-monger, psychopathic, liar...and....and....and!

Keep in mind that it is your religion who describes your God.  The above named atheists only have that description to go on.  Since the Bible is recognized as the final authority by Christians, atheists tend to ignore Christian twitterings that God is all loving.  Instead, they refer to the description given in the source book to determine his alleged character, and that description does not describe an all loving god.  Loving at times, yes, but more often a barbaric and vindictive being capable of inflicting misery that serial killers could only dream of, and one of his sins is demanding to be worshiped for his barbaric behavior.

But, If you are an atheist that believes that Christians are allowed to have their religion, no problem.
You are the first I have met then.

Well it's good then that you get out more, and find out what you're actually arguing against.

I was really under the impression that all atheists hates any theist, think they are uneducated believers of a God that can not be proven and as such should be treated as idiots'

As unfounded as your much of your belief may be, I don't think anyone here has ever advocated that you should not be allowed your religion.

[Cavebear]

Funny how this sentiment almost exclusively comes from people whose own sources are more partisan, less credible, and less honest.  It almost seems like a form of projection.

Mousetrap doesn't think his sources are iffy at best and deliberately fake at worst.  And that's the problem!  He (I assume "he") is convinced that his info source is the Only Real One in a world of conspiracies and liars.  I don't know how to get through that. 

I grew up with a Dad who was an Engineer and a Mom who was relentless in pursuit of facts (which I assume is why they got along together so well for almost 70 years) and I "caught it" from them.  So when I meet people like Mousetrap (who seems to really believe what he posts), I don't really know how to argue.  I can only present verifiable information to him. 

What can you do with someone like that?

[Hakurei Reimu]

So, the comets you tested now does have ice?
So, they are not dry entities that evaporated into space?

Comets formed beyond the frost line of the solar system. They didn't form in the inner system where the protoplanetary disk was swept almost clean of its volitiles. The Earth fromed in the inner solar system. The fact that comets are not entities devoid of water has no bearing on whether the Earth was.

I said, comets are evidence that the Nebulous cloud was ICE, MATTER and GAS.

Actually, ice and gas are also matter. That you separate them betrays your ignorance.

Also, it doesn't show that the protoplanetary disk was of uniform composition at the time that the Earth formed. If the protoplanetary disk was not of uniform composition (reasons why previously stated), then the composition of comets have no bearing on the composition of the Earth.

Now, lets get all this Icy, Gaseous, space-dust collected on a grandeur scale the size of our planets, and what will we have...
A mud ball earth!

You are making the tacit assumption that the initial nebula did not differentiate chemically. It did. The compostion of the protoplanetary disk was altered by the young sun's light. Which, by the way, all of your sources to date have aluded to in one way or another, including the one you just referenced.

You described in your graphic a while back that the earth initially gatheres as a "soggy mess," basically mud, which requires liquid water, and then gains an atmosphere. It's not as if you omitted the atmosphere for clarity, you thought that the atmosphere formed after the "soggy mess." Again, that's not physically viable, as any phase diagram of water illustrates. Any liquid water has to form under an atmosphere, or in some enclosed space. The atmosphere has to come first, and only when it reaches sufficient density to put enough pressure on the surface of the planet, only then can you get substances and structures that are dependent on the existence of liquid water.

Just as the Bible described.
Thanks for your assistance.

Don't try to use my own trick against me. You don't do it very well.

Now, you should again post to all your friends on this forum how poorly I understand science, and how great a physicist you are to get out of this predicament you created.

Oh, I'm no physicist, but I certainly know physics better than you. And you do poorly understand science. When you can't solve even the simplest problems that have been put forward to you, you don't undestand physics.

You can also post how uneducated a theist is and how they always twist the truth to prove a god!

Well, I still see your lips moving...

If this does not work, create a straw-man argument out of something else, then destroy that argument, and step on the winners podium bragging how you destroyed the Bible.
Greetings from Wild 2
comets were once wet!

...Powered by radiation from the nacent sun:

Solar heat had melted primordial dust, they presumed, which was then blown out to the cold outer reaches of the solar system and incorporated in the comets forming there.

Your own source, buddy. Comets didn't form in the inner solar system. Now, why would that be, if the protoplanetary disk's composition was uniform? Ah! It's because the disk wasn't.

Also, further:

The group concludes that the watery alteration most likely occurred in the comet when heat from either an impact or radioactive decay melted pockets of ice, which then quickly refroze.

Pockets of ice, friend. Not exposed to the vacuum of space. This was not water on the surface of the comet, that melted from the sunlight. It was generated by the impact of a similar body. That should tell you one thing in particular that is very important: When things in space hit each other, they heat up.

It's as if you don't understand your own sources are saying. Fancy that.

Now, what's that problem I've been posting the past couple of times involve? Ah, yes. An asteroid colliding with the Earth. With something as small as a comet, it was enough to heat up water to melting point (if it wasn't radioactivity). Now, what might happen on something with a bit more gravity to it?

It's as if you don't know and have no idea how to find out the answer. Fancy that.

[Cavebear]

Comets formed beyond the frost line of the solar system. They didn't form in the inner system where the protoplanetary disk was swept almost clean of its volitiles. The Earth fromed in the inner solar system. The fact that comets are not entities devoid of water has no bearing on whether the Earth was.
Actually, ice and gas are also matter. That you separate them betrays your ignorance.

Also, it doesn't show that the protoplanetary disk was of uniform composition at the time that the Earth formed. If the protoplanetary disk was not of uniform composition (reasons why previously stated), then the composition of comets have no bearing on the composition of the Earth.
You are making the tacit assumption that the initial nebula did not differentiate chemically. It did. The compostion of the protoplanetary disk was altered by the young sun's light. Which, by the way, all of your sources to date have aluded to in one way or another, including the one you just referenced.

You described in your graphic a while back that the earth initially gatheres as a "soggy mess," basically mud, which requires liquid water, and then gains an atmosphere. It's not as if you omitted the atmosphere for clarity, you thought that the atmosphere formed after the "soggy mess." Again, that's not physically viable, as any phase diagram of water illustrates. Any liquid water has to form under an atmosphere, or in some enclosed space. The atmosphere has to come first, and only when it reaches sufficient density to put enough pressure on the surface of the planet, only then can you get substances and structures that are dependent on the existence of liquid water.
Don't try to use my own trick against me. You don't do it very well.
Oh, I'm no physicist, but I certainly know physics better than you. And you do poorly understand science. When you can't solve even the simplest problems that have been put forward to you, you don't undestand physics.
Well, I still see your lips moving...
...Powered by radiation from the nacent sun:Your own source, buddy. Comets didn't form in the inner solar system. Now, why would that be, if the protoplanetary disk's composition was uniform? Ah! It's because the disk wasn't.

Also, further:Pockets of ice, friend. Not exposed to the vacuum of space. This was not water on the surface of the comet, that melted from the sunlight. It was generated by the impact of a similar body. That should tell you one thing in particular that is very important: When things in space hit each other, they heat up.

It's as if you don't understand your own sources are saying. Fancy that.

Now, what's that problem I've been posting the past couple of times involve? Ah, yes. An asteroid colliding with the Earth. With something as small as a comet, it was enough to heat up water to melting point (if it wasn't radioactivity). Now, what might happen on something with a bit more gravity to it?

It's as if you don't know and have no idea how to find out the answer. Fancy that.

Thank you.  I really needed some serious science.  And no that's not sarcasm.  I didn't have the energy to write so long (and so good) a post...

[SGOS]

What can you do with someone like that?

A 2 X 4 or a baseball bat?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Alex Jones exists to make Fox "News" seem rational. It didn't work.

[Cavebear]

A 2 X 4 or a baseball bat?

Well, both should work.  Though I happened to see the very end of Resident Evil the other day and a fireman's axe seemed a REALLY good choice.  I might be partial to a good crossbow.  Some distance but also good accuracy and hitpower.

[Mike Cl]

Mousetrap doesn't think his sources are iffy at best and deliberately fake at worst.  And that's the problem!  He (I assume "he") is convinced that his info source is the Only Real One in a world of conspiracies and liars.  I don't know how to get through that. 

I grew up with a Dad who was an Engineer and a Mom who was relentless in pursuit of facts (which I assume is why they got along together so well for almost 70 years) and I "caught it" from them.  So when I meet people like Mousetrap (who seems to really believe what he posts), I don't really know how to argue.  I can only present verifiable information to him. 

What can you do with someone like that?

Ignore?  That's abut it.  I do marvel at his total embrace of stupidity (remember ignorance can be fixed, stupidity cannot).

[Cavebear]

Ignore?  That's abut it.  I do marvel at his total embrace of stupidity (remember ignorance can be fixed, stupidity cannot).

Good point about ignorance.  Its curable.

[Blackleaf]

Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
as
Not believing in God is not a religion.

This is a hard one for theists to grasp.  They, including myself years ago, thought atheism was an assertion.  They think, "I don't believe in God," is the same thing as,  "I believe there is no god."  They can't understand that nuance, even though the nuance is as big as the stars.

Theists have to believe that atheists are just as bad as they are, otherwise they have to admit that we are more rational than they are. "It takes more faith to be an atheist," they say, yet they consider faith to be a virtue. When they try to drag us down to their level, it shows that they know that blind faith is stupid, but they excel at this kind of doublethink.

[Blackleaf]

Ignore?  That's abut it.  I do marvel at his total embrace of stupidity (remember ignorance can be fixed, stupidity cannot).

Ignorance can be fixed, but willful ignorance cannot. There's a big difference between not knowing something and not being willing to know something. Mouse is the latter.

[Baruch]

Ideology is always based on double-think.  Unless one is charitable and honest enough to say ... "we this and we that ..." instead of "them this and them that ...".

[Unbeliever]

Well, both should work.  Though I happened to see the very end of Resident Evil the other day and a fireman's axe seemed a REALLY good choice.  I might be partial to a good crossbow.  Some distance but also good accuracy and hitpower.

Just don't forget to double tap!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQe2f8L-Rkc

[Cavebear]

Theists have to believe that atheists are just as bad as they are, otherwise they have to admit that we are more rational than they are. "It takes more faith to be an atheist," they say, yet they consider faith to be a virtue. When they try to drag us down to their level, it shows that they know that blind faith is stupid, but they excel at this kind of doublethink.

Nice approach!  The doublethink was always there but I hadn't quite thought enough about their claim atheists "believe" on faith vs their own reasons for faith.  It seems obvious in retrospect, but I was always arguing against faith on the theists' parts.