(Hint: try M-M in a rapidly accelerating reference frame, and you won't see the same result) GourmetDan is an interesting specimen indeed (much to the chagrin of those of us among conservatives who wish to be distanced from such nonsense).
Posted on 08/07/2007 3:54:06 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Four Evidences of Cosmic Youth 08/04/2007
Astronomers and planetary scientists routinely talk in millions and billions of years. Three recent science news reports raise questions about how to fit apparently young objects into a vast timeline.
1) Lunar burps: The moon is passing gas, reported Science News). This explains the long history of observations of lunar transients, or bright flashes observed from Earth on certain parts of the moon. Arlin Crotts (Columbia U) believes the flashes come from the decay of uranium that escapes through cracks, but mentions the possibility that volcanism is still active.
2) Flinging rings: Saturn’s G-ring has been explained in an announcement from Jet Propulsion Lab (see also) Science Daily). A persistent ring arc in the outer bright rings, confined by the moon Mimas, gets swept by the magnetic field, flinging particles into the tenuous G-ring. (The G-ring lies between the thin F-ring and the broad E-ring fed by the Enceladus geysers; see 07/11/2006). The original paper in Science1 says, “The dust-sized particles that dominate this ring’s optical properties should erode quickly in Saturn’s magnetosphere, yet there was no direct evidence for larger source bodies that could replenish the dust and no clear explanation for the concentration of such bodies in this one region.” The article and original paper do not mention how long this has been going on, but presumably the material would have long been depleted well before millions of years, because collisions in the arc are steadily being ground to dust by collisions.
3) Bursting moons: Speaking of Enceladus, a recent paper in Icarus2 said that tidal flexing cannot explain the heat coming out of this small moon, either now or in the past:
"The heating in Enceladus in an equilibrium resonant configuration with other saturnian satellites can be estimated independently of the physical properties of Enceladus. We find that equilibrium tidal heating cannot account for the heat that is observed to be coming from Enceladus. Equilibrium heating in possible past resonances likewise cannot explain prior resurfacing events."
Meyer and Wisdom said that the neighboring moon Mimas, about the same size but closer to Saturn, experiences 11 times as much tidal heating but shows no sign of activity. In their conclusion, they wondered that both Io (at Jupiter) and Enceladus (at Saturn) are both so active:
"But it is curious that one has to appeal to nonequilibrium tidal oscillations or episodic activity to heat both Io and Enceladus (Ojakangas and Stevenson, 1986). If the fraction of time spent in an active state is, say, of order 20%, for each satellite, then the probability that both are found in an active state today is only 4%."
Cassini will fly by Enceladus at very close range on March 10 and even sample particles in the plume; see announcement in Space.com.
4) Veil unveilings: Portions of the wispy Veil Nebula in Cygnus have been photographed in detail by the Hubble Space Telescope. This highly-distended nebula is the remnant of a supernova explosion long thought to be tens of thousands of years old (see 02/16/2001). Now, a press release posted by Science Daily claims the explosion “could have been witnessed and recorded by ancient civilizations” as recently as 5,000 years ago.
Every once in awhile, it bears repeating: it is more empirically justifiable to infer young ages than old ages, because the observation-to-assumption ratio is much higher. You can take an observed phenomenon and extrapolate it backward from the present a bit – that is reasonable. But to start with an assumption of billions of years and then try to fit a short-lived phenomenon into it lowers the observation-to-assumption ratio by many orders of magnitude. Would it be reasonable to observe a sparkler for 5 seconds, and then claim it has been burning for 100 years? We think science should tether itself to the observations rather than run amok like a stray dog.
1 Matthew M. Hedman, Joseph A. Burns, Matthew S. Tiscareno, Carolyn C. Porco, Geraint H. Jones, Elias Roussos, Norbert Krupp, Chris Paranicas, and Sascha Kempf, “The Source of Saturn’s G Ring,” Science, 3 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5838, pp. 653-656, DOI: 10.1126/science.1143964.
2 Jennifer Meyer and Jack Wisdom, “Tidal Heating in Enceladus,” Icarus, Volume 188, Issue 2, June 2007, Pages 535-539.
The a priori belief in evolution from your site you listed: “the front feet of Hyracotherium have four toes whereas those of Equus have one toe. Such diagnosable differences allow us also to test whether or not Hyracotherium evolved into Equus by examining the rock and fossil record for transitional forms bridging the morphologic gap and in proper geochronologic succession, thus demonstrating descent with modification. “
The actual facts: “1: In 1841, the earliest so-called “horse” fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox’s head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse.
2: In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse.
3: 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn’t changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in “the evolution” of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.
The question is: “Is the scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh true?”
The simple answer is “No”. While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.”
If you can offerc som 3e scientific reasoning why Baraminology isn’t a ligitimate scientific classification system, I’d like to see it- But mind you, I’m not interested in opnion on the matter as is so often given when maligning hypothesis that soem don’t agree with. Giving an opinion without anyscientific reason why Baraminology isn’t valid simply doesn’t cut it- but alas- the internet is filled with sites liek the one you gave that are fulkl of opinion and nothign but more and more assumptiomns used to prop up their own favoured hypothesis- wee- aint the game fun? Sigh!
no i have not missed the point, all the ‘lines of evidence’ that you claim verify each other are all based on the usual, starting assumptions that cant be verified and starting assumptions THAT GUARANTEE the end result needed to prop up the paradigm.
amazing that folks dont want to admit that.
woops forgot to give link to last quote: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html
and: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=169
It’s all certainly a grand hypothesis evolution, but wqoefully lacking in any evidence to back it up other than to assume that it must have happened despite lack of evidence.- but it’s always fun to watchthe arrows slung when the hypothesis is put forth and defended. Yes, fun fun indeed!
[[no i have not missed the point, all the ‘lines of evidence’ that you claim verify each other are all based on the usual, starting assumptions that cant be verified and starting assumptions THAT GUARANTEE the end result needed to prop up the paradigm.
amazing that folks dont want to admit that]]
Bingo that prettyy much sums it up exactly. Evolution- Taking God’s design patterns and using it to ‘predict’ what should be seen, and walla- by gosh by golly- finding it, and finding that the MICROevolutionary changes that are based on biological fact do infact indeed happenb, and hten proposing it crosses major taxons with nothign to back it all up but assumptions.
Animals with toes that resemble the basic physiological model of a horse? Gasp! There was another animal at soem time that looked similiar to a horse? God just couldn’t have used workqable models on all animals and created similiar looking but completely different species- ohg heck no- that couldn’;t even be a ‘scientific’ possibility- the one had to evolve inbto the other and that is that!
“==The Universe has no identifiable center. All galaxies are moving away from each other as space continually expands.
Once again, the notion that the universe has no center is based on an assumption, as stephen Hawking and George Ellis freely admit:”
Did you take the special “Bill Clinton: How I parse words to completely alter their meaning in order to commit crimes in front of the whole nation and get away with them” class? I didn’t say the Universe HAD no center - I said it had no presently-IDENTIFIABLE center. Again, you are using the classic tools of the Creationist - parse words and twist meanings and post out-of-context quotes to construct a false argument. If you had the slightest inkling of cosmology you would never make such a bizarre statement as the Earth is the center of the Universe. If the Universe did not come from the Big Bang, then please explain the 2.7 degree Kelvins microwave background radiation that was PREDICTED by Big Bang theory in 1948 and subsequently discovered in 1964. Please explain why the galaxies are flying apart and the cosmological redshifts that are observed. It is YOU who is making assumptions that are contradictory to all the empirical evidence, and, indeed, common sense. I already pointed out the problems in your theory about the gravitational time dilation local to Earth in a previous post. There is NO observational evidence to support your contention. I have come to a conclusion: Your profound obtuseness cannot possibly be explicable by an intellectual deficit; my hypothesis at this point is that you are a sadistic troll who takes sick pleasure in wasting the time of others with twisted logic and grotesquely fallacious arguments. It is a greater intellectual faux pas to deny the fact of evolution than it would be to insist that the Apollo astronauts never walked on the moon. In terms of sheer evidential volume, there is more evidence to support the former proposition than there is for the latter.
==Your profound obtuseness cannot possibly be explicable by an intellectual deficit; my hypothesis at this point is that you are a sadistic troll who takes sick pleasure in wasting the time of others with twisted logic and grotesquely fallacious arguments.
Your characterization suggest that you wish for our communications to cease...which is fine by me (I totally understand...for I refuse to debate people I believe are known liars). Of course, you are wrong. It’s not my fault that your Darwinian/Copernican blinders get in the way of your God-given curiosity, preventing you from understanding what has been plainly set-out right under your nose. I was about to take it a step further, such as introducing you to the cosmologists and the evidence that suggest that the apriori assumption of the Capernican principle re: Big Bang cosmology was unwarranted and actually flew in the face of the available evidence. But given your attitude I will save it for someone who is genuinely interested. Good luck on the rest of your life—GGG
I would never suggest a word was forbidden.
I said that its use says something about the speaker.
That would be very close to the truth.
>>weak, man
really weak<<
Really? That’s the conservative position - we don’t ban speech. People can speak how they like but they should take responsibility for what they say.
If someone says something that indicates they are either not knowledgeable about a subject or else are deliberately distorting the topic, they should not be surprised when other people think they are either not knowledgeable or else dishonest on that topic.
If they repeat it over and over and claim to be knowledgeable when they are clearly not, eventually people will conclude they are being dishonest.
Sad but true.
There are no facts to twist. Theory is all that exists and theory says that the two models are indistinguishable.
"What they are actually saying is that there is no reference point in the Universe that can be declaimed the “center” that is not equivalent to any other point, as far as observations from that point are concerned."
They are making that claim, yes. And the consequence of making that claim is that they have made heliocentrism and geocentrism to be equivalent models. They understood that and you should too.
"Are you seriously contending that the Earth (or Sun) is the center of the Universe because of those out-of-context quotes? Those quotes are as misleading as the ones in the Creationist article that started this thread."
You do not understand the difference between evidence and belief. There is no evidence that can distinguish between the heliocentric and geocentric models. You *believe* in heliocentrism. The quotes are not misleading, either Einstein/Hoyle or the ones posted above. It is your *belief* that they are misleading because you *believe* in an old universe and heliocentrism. You simply brush contradictory evidence and arguments aside because they don't fit with your *beliefs*.
"Do you understand no cosmology at all?"
Do you understand the difference between evidence and belief?
"Does the Earth not orbit the Sun, and the Sun not orbit the galaxy ~8 kiloparsecs out from the center in the Orion Arm? This would cause the center of the Universe to constantly be shifting, wouldn’t it?"
This is what you *believe*, not what you can prove. As Einstein and Hoyle point out, there is no way to prove this short of going outside the universe and looking back.
"BTW, Einstein never accepted the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is a proven fact. He wasn’t right about everything, and your misquoting him to obfuscate the truth of what I said does nothing to add to a reasoned debate."
I'm certainly no Einstein-worshipper, but you would (or should) be surprised at what constitutes a 'proven fact' and what is simply belief. You cannot show that I am misquoting Einstein and Hoyle because I am not. Short of that, please stop making false claims.
The reason we cannot have a reasoned debate is because you insist that your beliefs are proven facts when they are not. You cannot show them to be proven and you are the one who is obfuscating to avoid admitting that I am correct.
Now you can believe anything you want. Just be honest enough to admit what is belief and what is science. That's the whole problem we have these days. 'Scientists' present their philosophical beliefs as though they are science when they are not.
No it doesn't. It could also mean that the stars are centered on the sun and not the earth. If the stars were centered on the earth in a geocentric model, you could not get the gravitational effect needed to offset the annual motion of the sun through space.
Now, how about you explain how Airey's Failure supports a 'moving earth'?
How about explaining how the null result of Michelson-Morely supports a 'moving earth'.
Both experiments were designed to detect the motion of the earth through space and both failed miserably.
(Hint: try M-M in a rapidly accelerating reference frame, and you won't see the same result) GourmetDan is an interesting specimen indeed (much to the chagrin of those of us among conservatives who wish to be distanced from such nonsense).
Hey, don’t shoot the messenger.
As before, the statements were “just to be a pain”.
“it’s the one that matches the observations and matches all that is known about the physical behavior of matter (including gravity)”
Matching observation of matter... anything like matching the observation of the quata? Nearest my recollection, even the “natural science” of observations of matter and movement still does not claim to be definative. Science itself even holds that.
Thus the debate on so many crevo threads about evolution. The Darwinists insist that science will continue to provide new information previously unheld by man (or uncomprehended). -No, this is not a segue into an evolution debate, it is a point that is easy to reference about science and the whole “True/False, Right/Wrong” debate.
Just to do the same “be a pain” bit here as well-
We all realize that our classification system by taxa is a *human* invention, right?
As with the thing earlier- our understanding of taxa (grouping by appearance) and our way of using it are simply easiest to understand in regards to an Evolutionist’s standpoint.
The concept (and problems with) having each species being seperate throughout it’s entire life-spans is simply less complex when put into the mold cast by Darwin. This also makes a nice comfy *home* for scientists to reference later when they find new evidence.
(It’s easier to move a couch to make room for something new than it is to move into a new home- problem is, the couch is now on the Microwave with all the *making room* Science has had to do.)
[[As with the thing earlier- our understanding of taxa (grouping by appearance) and our way of using it are simply easiest to understand in regards to an Evolutionist’s standpoint.]]
It isn’t just appearances that determine classifications, it’s also biological evidence, and biologically, Baraminology holds true that species are seperated biologically, and not all interconnected. Now, if there were true examples of MACRO-Evolution, instead of just conjecture, assumption and speculation, then Baraminology would rightfully not be a ligitimate classification criteria- however, since there is no factual evidence showing MACRO-Evolution is a fact, the model of Baraminology best fits the observed evidences and the biological evidences.
[[We all realize that our classification system by taxa is a *human* invention, right?]]
Absolutely- BOTH systems have their problems, and under such a complex and difficult study, one would expect problems to crop up- the only problem is though that while the evo model is allowed great leaway and allowed it’s own problems, there are those that hold Baraminology to absolute perfection requirements in order to be concidered a ‘ligitimate scientific classification’- A blatant double standard and hypocritical stance if ever there was one. The problems associated with obscure examples deep within hte field of Baraminology pale in comparison with hte fact that the evo model of classification can’t account for the biological seperation of certain species which, in order for hte evo model to be correct, NEED to be biologically connected. The fact is that leaps in faith NEED to be made in order to believe that biologically seperated species share common ancestry. But you’re right- the broad umbrella of “everythign has common descent” is unfalsifiable and all encompassing, so the problems that do crop up are simply swept away under hte rug, and called ‘science’
aH- so let me get htis straight- because Dan doesn’t agree with you, he isn’t ligit, but in order for you to be right, certain preconditions need to be met which we can’t know happened in the past, but have to make a huge leap in faith that it ‘might have happened’? I see. Is that your best defense? Yawn!
Deliberately distorting a topic? How about you, like right now, in light of the exchanges you have just had with me here?
Since I can see what you a driving at [having lurked through crevo threads here, for the last couple of years], about this word, or label that puts your knickers in a twist --- when it's used by the *wrong* [in your estimate] folks, I won't charge you with being dishonest. Spin-doctoring, perhaps...
>>You are a conservative now?<<
Yep. For years and years.
You don't even know what I'm talking about either! Do you even know what general relativity is? You kids best leave science to the grown-ups who have actually studied it.
It is entertaining to see creationist ignorance on full exhibitionist display! You people can't answer basic science questions and you expect to be taken seriously?!
I see from your posting history that you enjoy carrying on the comedy without showing any technical knowledge yourself! 
Carry on. I find it all very fun and entertaining, as I'm sure others do who actually understand their science. In the mean time, I wish ignorant people would quit trying to marginalize the Republican Party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.