Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    A bit old but a good summary for that time ... note the quote from (the late) Carl Sagan...
    http://creation.com/comets-and-the-a...e-solar-system

    ‘Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.’
    Sagan, C. and Druyan, A., 1985. Comets, Random House, New York, p 201.
    That statement was made nearly 30 years ago when indeed that was the case. That was even five years before the Hubble telescope had even been launched. Things have changed considerably since that time.

    In some ways this is akin to finding a quote from the 1980s saying that there is not yet a shred of evidence that Fermat's Last Theorem will ever be proved and using it to show that it will never be proved while ignoring the fact Andrew Wiles did it in 1994. Or quotes saying that the existence of the Higgs boson is nothing but conjecture made before it was confirmed by the scientists at CERN in 2012.

    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    This article illustrates the wild-n-wacky lengths that Naturalists will go to in order to hold on to their beliefs ('cause it sure isn't science). http://www.icr.org/article/new-comet-origins/
    Please note that I cited a radio broadcast from ICR in this post where they acknowledge the existence of what appears to be clouds of planetesimals surrounding other stars just like the Oort cloud is thought to surround the sun. Why would they be around other stars but it is ridiculous to assume that one could be around our star?
    Last edited by rogue06; 05-31-2014, 09:32 PM.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      A bit old but a good summary for that time ... note the quote from (the late) Carl Sagan...
      http://creation.com/comets-and-the-a...e-solar-system

      ‘Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.’
      Sagan, C. and Druyan, A., 1985. Comets, Random House, New York, p 201.
      Here we go again, quote mining. As one might expect, Sagan is talking about something quite different here, in fact, Oort's genius. And in a very different context. While the Jorge's use of the quote makes it sound like there is some mind boggling disconnect between the facts and the postulate of the Oort cloud, Sagan's premise and topic is in fact the opposite: how amazing it is that we can discover something like the Oort cloud without directly observing it!. (Jorge is snagging this mined quote directly from his YEC sources, so it is unlikely he has a clue what the actual context is)

      So let's look at Sagan's discussion. He first acknowledges what I've already said. That the Oort cloud is a hypothesis to account, not for the fact comets have short lives, but rather to account for the fact new comets keep entering our solar system every year from a place many thousands of AU (Astronomical Units - the average distance from the Earth to the Sun) away.

      Source: same book

      Just as Halley had examined the orbital characteristics of the handful of comets available to him, Oort studied nineteen long period comets with well-determined orbits. He found a smattering of long period comets with orbits of a few thousand Astonoical Units (A.U.), and even a few tens of thousands of AU. These are already far from the sun, hundreds of time farther than Pluto is. But the bulk of the comets seemed to be clustered in the vicinity of 20,000 A.U. or more. Nineteen comets is not a large sample, but it is enough. Since Oort's pioneering study in 1950, the statistics have improved, but the conclusion remains the same. Most long period comets come from a region roughly 50,000 A.U. from the sun

      © Copyright Original Source



      But if one reads the entire section, Sagan, As I already mentioned, is not commenting on the lack of evidence for the Oort cloud. He is commenting on how we are able to discover something like the Oort cloud by carefully examining the evidence, and by the application of true genius to the interpretation of that data.

      And now back to some who is clearly NOT an example of true genius:

      "This raises a very important question as to the scientific status of the Oort cloud. Can something that cannot be observed, even indirectly as in the case of subatomic phenomenon, be classed as scientific? While the Oort cloud is often referred to as a theory, given the usual definition of a theory and the impossibility of observation, can the Oort cloud be termed a theory? Indeed, given that it is doubtful that this idea can ever be tested, one has to question whether the Oort cloud is even an hypothesis."

      And as we can see, this fellow writing the article is simply clueless. CLUELESS! The entire section of the book he is quoting is about INDIRECT inference and how it helped us discover the Oort cloud!! How utterly mindless some people are!!!

      Anyway Jorge, your quoted 'friend' is an idiot. He should have read the section he lifted the quote from instead of making a fool of himself by not understanding the context of the quote or what kind of evidence there is for the Oort cloud or why Sagan said the words he said.

      This article illustrates the wild-n-wacky lengths that Naturalists will go to in order to hold on to their beliefs ('cause it sure isn't science). http://www.icr.org/article/new-comet-origins/
      Well Jorge, as I've said before, the comets come from somewhere. It is the duty of a real astronomer that studies comets and their origins to try to understand all we can about where they come from.

      BTW, what is your theory. That God just put a bunch of them out there for grins? What we will find Jorge is that comets come from a source or set of sources that is absolutely a product of how stars form - naturally. Just watch. Just like that picture of a planet you thought would never come, so will our understanding of comet origins eventually be filled in. And it will match, just like everything else so far discovered, what would be expected in a universe that is 13.7 billion years old. And the reason that is the case? Well, because the universe is 13.7 billion years old, or thereabouts (or older).

      Well, that's as much time as I'll put into this but I did want to make a comment on your "science".
      You really should put more time into it Jorge. And I'd look at more reputable sources as well if I were you. And read them slowly enough to understand what they actually are saying as well.

      You say, "Jorge, there is evidence for a source of comets in the outer solar system. That evidence is derived from the orbits of new long period comets. They tend to come from out beyond 10000AU, with a peak at around 20000 AU. You should understand what that means. We don't need photographs to know they come from that far away. We derive that from their orbits. Simple physics. So stop acting like this doesn't exist. Some sort of long distance source exists."

      I had to stop myself from falling off the chair after reading the above. (1) Extrapolating distances from orbits does NOT in any way, shape or form imply an Oort Cloud.
      Wrong! There are not simply distances Jorge, there are orbital parameters. This is where they drop in from. And as Sagan points out, this peak source point in the orbits has been confirmed, not undermined, by further study. This is where long period comets originate. These long period comets originate from an area of the solar system tenuously connected to our sun. It doesn't take much to perturb their orbits. But they clearly exist, because every year we see a few more of them!

      Sadly, what you are revealing here is not that you understand the data and the science, but that you have gotten your information about comets almost exclusively from YEC sources. I guess you trust them and think they are giving you useful information. But they are not. And you are dreadfully ignorant of what the data is and what the history is surrounding this area of study. As anyone can expect to be if they limit their information to the pablum ICR/AIG etc. make available.


      (2) Your last claim (sentence) above is an assumption - a necessary assumption - that you people absolutely must have in order to account for long-period comets when they shouldn't be there if the solar system were billions of years old.
      No Jorge. It is simply the logical conclusion based on analysis of the origins of long period comets. They all tend to come from approximately the same place. I don't know why that is so hard for you to grasp, but there it is.


      (3) You also claim that "there is evidence for a source". NO THERE IS NOT. The comets are observed but these observations say nothing about their source. Yet, their source is in question only if gigayears truly exist. We Biblical Creationists have NO NEED for an Oort Cloud for the simple fact that with only thousands of years then the existence of these comets poses NO MYSTERY to us - only to you with your gigayears. I'll stop here although there's much more nonsense of yours that I could respond to.

      When-oh-when are you FINALLY going to get it?

      Jorge
      Yikes. The above is hardly worth commenting on. Science is not about what is 'needed', it is about discovering what IS.

      Jim
      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-31-2014, 09:50 PM.
      My 'faith' designation is 'Christian'. But I do not want the label "Christian" leading to mockery of faith in Christ. Consequently, I apologize to those of you reading words of mine written here that reflect poorly on the what Faith in Christ means, or what Faith in Christ can in fact do in terms of bringing Grace, Mercy, and Love into the world.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        That statement was made nearly 30 years ago when indeed that was the case. That was even five years before the Hubble telescope had even been launched. Things have changed considerably since that time.

        In some ways this is akin to finding a quote from the 1980s saying that there is not yet a shred of evidence that Fermat's Last Theorem will ever be proved and using it to show that it will never be proved while ignoring the fact Andrew Wiles did it in 1994. Or quotes saying that the existence of the Higgs boson is nothing but conjecture made before it was confirmed by the scientists at CERN in 2012.


        Please note that I cited a radio broadcast from ICR in this post where they acknowledge the existence of what appears to be clouds of planetesimals surrounding other stars just like the Oort cloud is thought to surround the sun. Why would they be around other stars but it is ridiculous to assume that one could be around our star?
        It's not even that good. It's just yet another YEC misquote, out of context, made to appear to say nearly the opposite of the point that is actually being made. These guys have no scruples at all.

        Jim
        My 'faith' designation is 'Christian'. But I do not want the label "Christian" leading to mockery of faith in Christ. Consequently, I apologize to those of you reading words of mine written here that reflect poorly on the what Faith in Christ means, or what Faith in Christ can in fact do in terms of bringing Grace, Mercy, and Love into the world.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          While I wasn't posting when Socrates was here I read many of his posts. Tolerant or diplomatic are two terms I don't think that I would ever associate with him.

          The difference was that he would usually at least make an attempt to provide support for his statements rather than merely bellow and bluster.
          I do not know that I would use those terms for him either, but he never offended me. I could and would disagree but not be offended.
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            One guess: because Socrates was far more tolerant and diplomatic with the low-grade manure that spews from the Theistic Evolutionists here (?) ....... am I close?


            Socrates discussed the evidence.

            Roy
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

            Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

            Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              Why is it that you seem to confuse me with a Theistic Evolutionist? I am no such thing.
              I don't know what you are - I don't think that's ever been clear (in my mind, at least).
              I mentioned them because my main conflicts are with the Materialists and the TE's.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                These guys have no scruples at all.

                Jim
                Dear Mr. Lump of Coal, why are you calling the kettle "black"?

                Jorge

                Comment


                • Jorge,

                  Reminder of some discussion fuel:

                  1) Ge 1:2-3 literal unambiguous plain reading.

                  2) Appalachian Cyclothems.

                  Go!!!!

                  P.S. Notice that your font color is now a slightly brownish yellow. My surmise it will continue to get browner.
                  Santa

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Dear Mr. Lump of Coal, why are you calling the kettle "black"?

                    Jorge
                    Jorge,

                    The quote was a misquote. In that section Sagan goes through the evidence. It is a discussion about how we can learn about what we can't directly observe through inference. By observing their effects or properties. The key is "without DIRECT observation". The person quoting Sagan makes it out to be some kind of proof the concept is made up out of nothing. It is blatant deception.


                    Jim
                    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-01-2014, 09:55 AM.
                    My 'faith' designation is 'Christian'. But I do not want the label "Christian" leading to mockery of faith in Christ. Consequently, I apologize to those of you reading words of mine written here that reflect poorly on the what Faith in Christ means, or what Faith in Christ can in fact do in terms of bringing Grace, Mercy, and Love into the world.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Omega Red View Post
                      Yes, your arguments usually are.

                      Please PM if you are going to engage with detail, insight and substance regarding what I actually wrote and not what you think I wrote, what you hoped I had written or what someone in your support group rumoured I might have said once upon a time. If it's just going to be your usual blatherskite, please don't bother responding.
                      No PM - not now - since I want your ideologically-driven beliefs exposed for all to see. What you people do is bring up the same stuff over and over and over again, perhaps thinking that you will bore us into submission. Once and for all you need to accept that if you are going to be led by physical data then you must do so consistently - not picking and choosing as you please.

                      You had asked at what point is the science allowed to influence the exegetic methods / conclusions. That's a loaded question in multiple ways. What is "science"? What is "influence"? Influence how? Setting aside those important questions, science (true science) is in my biblical exegesis/hermeneutic from the start and all throughout.

                      I do not allow science-falsely-so-called -- the speculations and vain, agenda-loaded imaginations of men -- to dictate how to read God's Word. I constantly remind myself of the difference between operational science and historical science just as I always keep in mind that, when there is conflict or doubt, the vote is cast for God's Word, not for theories and worldly philosophies. In this my logic is irrefutable - it's a win-win strategy (maybe you can figure out why - left as an exercise).

                      On raqia, here's a bit that I easily found:

                      "The context of Genesis 1:6–8, 14–22 makes it clear that Moses intended his readers to understand raqia simply as the sky (atmosphere and heavens or space) above the earth, as even the sun, moon, and stars were placed in them. In fact, in modern Hebrew raqia is the word used for sky, and there is no connotation of hardness.

                      Genesis 1 is perfectly worded for what the author wanted to communicate. It says nothing more than God created the sky and its constituent elements, while remaining completely silent about what those elements were. It really depends upon where one starts: if one starts with the presumption of a solid dome, one will read that into the text. However, if one starts with a modern conception of sky, the text permits that understanding as well, and, hence, there is no contradiction."

                      SOURCE : https://answersingenesis.org/contrad...h-a-solid-sky/

                      Many researchers have investigated this 'raqia' topic, answered it conclusively, and it is by now (it should be!) a dried-up corpse. But as I began by saying in this post, you people practice the strategy of digging up these corpses thereby wasting our time on long-dead issues. Okay, so you've wasted some minutes of my time. Pat yourself on the back and now move on to the next one.

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • 27 pages, 250+ posts in and Jorge's only "scientific" contribution has been to give a few links to ICR and AIG with no attempt to defend or even discuss their YEC idiocy.

                        He has provided his usual high volume of cowardly evasions and insults though.

                        Who here is surprised?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Jorge,

                          The quote was a misquote. In that section Sagan goes through the evidence. It is a discussion about how we can learn about what we can't directly observe through inference. Be observing their effects. The person quoting Sagan makes it out to be some kind of proof the concept is made up out of nothing. It is blatant deception.

                          Jim
                          (1) I do not accept what you say at face value (why should I given your track record?) but, truth be told, I would have to find and read the original source itself to confirm it one way or the other. I used it based on the reputation of the source and on the fact that I've read that quote elsewhere.

                          (2) Regardless of (1), my post stands quite firmly. You said, "these guys have no scruples at all" and you read my appropriate sarcastic reply. I have never - I mean NEVER in my entire life - encountered people that are less concerned about being truthful and intellectually honest than Materialists/Atheists/Humanists and Theistic Evolutionists. I've never gotten used to it and I hope I never do.

                          Ergo, Mr. Coal ought not ever to be calling anyone "black".

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jorge, on Jim
                            (1) I do not accept what you say at face value (why should I given your track record?)...
                            Because Jim's track record does not contain numerous examples of copying blatantly fake quotes from quote-mines, omitting text from passages and then claiming they are "verbatim", and simply inventing quotes to fit requirements.

                            Roy
                            Last edited by Roy; 06-01-2014, 11:48 AM.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                            Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              Because Jim's track record does not contain numerous examples of copying blatantly fake quotes from quote-mines, omitting text from passages and then claiming they are "verbatim", and simply inventing quotes to fit requirements.

                              Roy
                              Yeah, right ... the above is coming from a Long-Standing Member (Roy) :

                              "I have never - I mean NEVER in my entire life - encountered people that are less concerned about being truthful and intellectually honest than Materialists/Atheists/Humanists and Theistic Evolutionists. I've never gotten used to that and I hope I never do."

                              Best that you remain quiet as a church mouse, sonny boy.

                              Jorge

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                                Why is it that you seem to confuse me with a Theistic Evolutionist? I am no such thing.
                                Hardly matters to Jorge. As his thread in the pre-crash Tweb ("TAKE TWO: Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?") revealed, not only are Theistic Creationists not real Christians, but he went on to make clear that everyone who isn't a YEC isn't one either.

                                Later, judging from on high, he grudgingly acquiesced that some of those who aren't YEC just might still be saved (though barely) if they are truly ignorant or not mentally capable of understanding their position.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-23-2021, 02:51 PM
                                7 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-21-2021, 07:42 AM
                                45 responses
                                235 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by rogue06, 09-18-2021, 08:59 AM
                                19 responses
                                95 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 09-15-2021, 11:13 AM
                                23 responses
                                87 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 09-14-2021, 07:34 AM
                                1 response
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X