Jump to content


Photo

Planet Earth


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 evolution_false

evolution_false

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 13
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Location: At the keyboard

Posted 25 June 2005 - 09:21 AM

Ok, let's take a quick break from the biological evolution and look at the other side of evolution. they say earth pretty much happened by chance. well, the way i see it, i find it very, very, very hard to belive its even a credible chance that the earth happened by chance, and i see it as almost an excuse for the unexplained part of evolution (no offense).

first off we have the position of our earth's orbit. We have the most circular orbit in the solar system, with exactly the right distance away from the sun. thats 1, probably possible by chance, but added to the other vital things about earth that supports our lives, its still a very small chance.

Then we have the magnetic field. this is actually one thing i know very little off, so i dont know if other planets have magnetic field, and if they do if it works close to the way earth's magnetic field works. so fill me in on this one plz

Then we have the earths atmosphere. The pressure is just too accurate. human body pressure= 14.7 psi. atmosphere pressure at sea level= 14.7 psi. is there really a chance that this could happen, along with all others in the same planet?

another thing about the atmosphere is the percentage of oxygen. There is about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% other. if we had 18% oxygen, then we dont have enough oxygen to breath and stay alive. 24% oxygen, interestingly enough, it takes one spark: lightning, cooking fire, cigarrett, etc. then the whole world blows up. (lits on fire would be a better phrase) according to evolutionist, ever since life existed, this percentage must have been stable for wat over a billion years. that would mean when plants and animals came to existence, they came to existence at the exactly right ratio. now having 21% oxygen by chance is hard enough, but to top that with the animal:plant ratio, its even harder to belive.

Then the ozone layer. the atmosphere has O2. out of the blue, we have a sphere of O3. ??!?!??! so we have O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O3 O2 O2 O2 ... where did the O3 come from? Now i dont know really if O3 can be formed naturally, in another words, if we can PROVE that O3 can be formed naturally, but again, other planets dont have it, which means it happened by a very little chance. also there is another belt that protects us from radiation which i forgot the name of.

To top it all, gravity. if we had less/more gravity, the atmosphere would not have been stable. things just would not work right. we have just enough gravity, no more, no less. all this occurring in the same planet by chance, ....... its a wow. and to the creationists a no.

again, i am a young student, so plz feel free to correct me and criticize me "constructively" cause pretty much everyone here seems to know more than me.

#2 evolution_false

evolution_false

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 13
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Location: At the keyboard

Posted 25 June 2005 - 09:36 AM

One more thing, this is more of a question for me, they say as the lava on earth cooled, water vapor rose from the surface and rained upon the earth, forming oceans. ok, lava is rock. just as ice is water. well, of course in different state, but that still does not mean water can come out of rock (can it?). so where exactly did water come out of?

#3 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 June 2005 - 10:07 AM

first off we have the position of our earth's orbit.

That's being covered in another thread.

i dont know if other planets have magnetic field, and if they do if it works close to the way earth's magnetic field works.

This is not completely understood. It is thought to be caused by circulation of the molten core inside a planet. Of the planets in our system, only Venus, with its slow rotation, lacks such a field -- however, Mercury, which also rotates slowly, does have one.


The pressure is just too accurate. human body pressure= 14.7 psi. atmosphere pressure at sea level= 14.7 psi. is there really a chance that this could happen, along with all others in the same planet?

This is no more coincidence than is the fact that a glove has five fingers. At great ocean depths are found creatures adapted to much greater pressures (which also suggests that life could adapt to greater gravities as well).


according to evolutionist, ever since life existed, this percentage must have been stable for wat over a billion years. that would mean when plants and animals came to existence, they came to existence at the exactly right ratio

Current thinking is that the atmosphere of early earth contained no oxygen, consisting primarily of products of volcanic out gassing such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, etc. Oxygen, introduced as a waste product from cyanobacteria, was probably quite toxic to the earliest life forms.


where did the O3 come from?

Natural formation of ozone occurs when ultra-violet light splits molecules of O2 into single oxygen atoms, which then react with other oxygen molecules to form O3 (ozone).

#4 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 June 2005 - 05:45 PM

Current thinking is that the atmosphere of early earth contained no oxygen, consisting primarily of products of volcanic out gassing such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, etc.  Oxygen, introduced as a waste product from cyanobacteria, was probably quite toxic to the earliest life forms.


I'm under the impression that the current thinking is that the supposedly early earth's atmosphere did contain oxygen, and consequently the Miller-Urey experiments as possible scenarios for the origin of life have taken a big hit.

But now with more knowledge it has become abundantly clear that Earth's atmosphere has always had free oxygen. Water vapor readily breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. Furthermore, we find oxidized minerals in rocks of every supposed age. Cells, whose ancestors are thought to have pre-dated the evolution of photosynthesis, likewise contain evidence that they lived in the presence of oxygen


http://www.icr.org/i...ion=view&ID=571Hasn't Life Been Created in the Laboratory?

Terry

#5 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:32 PM

This is not completely understood.  It is thought to be caused by circulation of the molten core inside a planet.  Of the planets in our system, only Venus, with its slow rotation, lacks such a field -- however, Mercury, which also rotates slowly, does have one.


Its thought by long-age proponents, and evolutionists to be caused by some dynamo.

Dr. Humphrey's has worked out a model that demonstrates the earth is proably no more than 10k years old. His model seems to work pretty well, it predicted the unknown field strengths of Uranus:

Two years later, on January 20, 1986, Voyager II passed by Uranus. It showed that Uranus has a magnetic moment of 3.0 x 1024 A m2, well within the bounds of my prediction. In contrast, many evolutionists had predicted that Uranus would have a much smaller field, or none at all.7 This prediction grew directly out of their "dynamo" theories, which assume that the fluid interior of a planet is like an electrical generator (dynamo) maintaining the magnetic field forever.


and later Neptune.

It has also been supported by discoveries of fast field reversals in some basalt flows that can possibly explain the reversals in the ocean floor.

Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it.9 And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal.10 This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model.


The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young

From what I can tell, this is certainly one aspect of science that is working in creationist's favor.

Terry

#6 evolution_false

evolution_false

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 13
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Location: At the keyboard

Posted 25 June 2005 - 08:29 PM

This is no more coincidence than is the fact that a glove has five fingers. At great ocean depths are found creatures adapted to much greater pressures (which also suggests that life could adapt to greater gravities as well).



u sure the creatures can adapt their body pressure? actually, this shows the works of the creator. creatures suited to live in heavy pressure under the ocean have the right amount of body pressure, and those that live in different levels of the ocean, has the right amount of pressure. again, if we are able to "adapt" to different pressures (i dont mean from Colorado to FLorida, there is a much greater difference from sea level to deep down the ocean), i would be wrong, but if we cannot, then i wonder how the evolutionists will respond to that. does anyone know if that kind of experiment ever occured?

#7 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2005 - 06:56 AM

I'm under the impression that the current thinking is that the supposedly early earth's atmosphere did contain oxygen

View Post

It isn't hard to see how one might get such an impression from the sources you linked. It probably originates with statements such as: "we find oxidized minerals in rocks of every supposed age". I hunger for details. Minerals which rapidly oxidize today, such as urananite and pyrite, are found unoxidized in Precambrian sediments. No iron oxides are found. Exactly what minerals were they referring to, and in what rocks?


Its thought by long-age proponents, and evolutionists to be caused by some dynamo.

Planetary rotation providing the mechanical energy which is converted to electrical energy, which produces the magnetic field.


From what I can tell, this is certainly one aspect of science that is working in creationist's favor.

If AIG is one's primary source of information, one might easily get the impression that all of science is working in the creationist's favor. In one sense this may be true; the process of scientific inquiry often does produce mountains of uncertainty, atop many of which the creationist may rush to plant his flag.

#8 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2005 - 07:52 AM

If AIG is one's primary source of information, one might easily get the impression that all of science is working in the creationist's favor. In one sense this may be true; the process of scientific inquiry often does produce mountains of uncertainty, atop many of which the creationist may rush to plant his flag.


Well, if you only listen to the prosecuter, then everyone that is marched into court is guilty. There is little point in haggling over bias in these discussions, unless you think that you and the sources of information that you have are not. Of course, its true that evolutionists prefer a kangaroo court in this discussion, but that's another discussion itself.

Anyway, ...., in the case of the earth's magnetic field, it makes very good sense, and is not only supported by real scientific data,(i.e. not imaginary just-so-stories forced to fit a belief system, but measured data), but also the venomous personal attacks that are made on Dr. Humphreys' character and professional integrity about his claims by the opposition.

Planetary rotation providing the mechanical energy which is converted to electrical energy, which produces the magnetic field.


So they say, but how well has this theory worked at predicting other planetary filed strenghts?

Two years later, on January 20, 1986, Voyager II passed by Uranus. It showed that Uranus has a magnetic moment of 3.0 x 1024 A m2, well within the bounds of my prediction. In contrast, many evolutionists had predicted that Uranus would have a much smaller field, or none at all.7 This prediction grew directly out of their "dynamo" theories, which assume that the fluid interior of a planet is like an electrical generator (dynamo) maintaining the magnetic field forever. The generator mechanism would be driven by heat in the interior, which would manifest itself by a significant heat outflow from the planet's surface. However, astronomic measurements had shown that Uranus has very little heat outflow. Hence, by their theories, Uranus should not have a strong magnetic field. But it does!


Voyager II Supports Creation

Terry

#9 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2005 - 08:36 AM

There is little point in haggling over bias in these discussions, unless you think that you and the sources of information that you have are not.

View Post

As I'm sure you have by now gathered from our discussions, I don't think anyone is immune to bias. I agree that haggling over it is pointless, as that implies a process which is itself tainted, with arguments proceeding from predrawn conclusions. Still, assessing the value of a piece of information inevitably involves some attempt to estimate the degree of bias at the source. When someone says (like Coe did): "Here is what we found, and we don't know what it means", I estimate the degree of bias to be low. When someone says: "Here is what we found, and this proves that creationism is true", I estimate the degree of bias to be high. There is an annoyingly recursive quality to this process, since my estimates cannot possibly be free of my own bias -- my estimates of which are, of course, usually quite low.

#10 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2005 - 09:27 AM

Still, assessing the value of a piece of information inevitably involves some attempt to estimate the degree of bias at the source.  When someone says (like Coe did): "Here is what we found, and we don't know what it means", I estimate the degree of bias to be low.


I think the source of bias is very high in such a statement. What it really means is, "Here is what we found, and since it contradicts our paradigm or support a postition we disaprove of, then we don't want to face up to what it means".

Terry

#11 ninhursag

ninhursag

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Interests:Reasons. Why do people live/think/believe like they do?
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Estonia

Posted 26 June 2005 - 09:30 AM

I think the source of bias is very high in such a statement.  What it really means is, "Here is what we found, and since it contradicts our paradigm or support a postition we disaprove of, then we don't want to face up to what it means".

View Post


Such a statement of course could be biased. But then, what to write when you genuinely have no idea what your find might mean?

#12 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2005 - 09:45 AM

Such a statement of course could be biased. But then, what to write when you genuinely have no idea what your find might mean?

View Post

Continuing along this line will surely lead to something functionally equivalent to a 'stack overflow'.

#13 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2005 - 10:55 AM

Continuing along this line will surely lead to something functionally equivalent to a 'stack overflow'.

View Post



:blink: :D :D :D :D :D

Terry

#14 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2005 - 10:57 AM

Such a statement of course could be biased. But then, what to write when you genuinely have no idea what your find might mean?

View Post



Evolution did it!!!!!

:blink: :D :D :D

Terry

#15 evolution_false

evolution_false

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 13
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Location: At the keyboard

Posted 26 June 2005 - 01:12 PM

Evolution did it!!!!!

:blink:  :D  :D  :D

Terry

View Post



LOL

#16 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 June 2005 - 10:44 PM

first off we have the position of our earth's orbit. We have the most circular orbit in the solar system, 

View Post


[Pedantic mode], actual Venus has that distinction, with an eccentricity of only 0.0068 [/Pedantic mode]. Just had to share :)

#17 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 June 2005 - 10:50 PM

u sure the creatures can adapt their body pressure? actually, this shows the works of the creator. creatures suited to live in heavy pressure under the ocean have the right amount of body pressure, and those that live in different levels of the ocean, has the right amount of pressure. again, if we are able to "adapt" to different pressures (i dont mean from Colorado to FLorida, there is a much greater difference from sea level to deep down the ocean), i would be wrong, but if we cannot, then i wonder how the evolutionists will respond to that. does anyone know if that kind of experiment ever occured?

View Post


Provided there is no gas in the object, the pressure of a body is equal to what ever circumstances it finds itself in. The problem you are thinking of I’m sure issituations where animals are moved rapidly from there deep environment and die (gas is released during the rapid transition to low pressure).

#18 evolution_false

evolution_false

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 13
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Location: At the keyboard

Posted 27 June 2005 - 11:01 AM

(which also suggests that life could adapt to greater gravities as well).


I know they could. what i meant by just the right amount of gravity was that, well, gravity supports the atmosphere. different amounts of gravity would alter the atmosphere.

anyway, the point was that, everyone can pretty much agree, earth is a very rare planet, possibly the only planet that supports life, or one of the very, very few. Well, the whole process of evolution is all by chance. by "chance" mutation occurred, by "chance" it was for the better of the organism, and considering the number of species we have today, for all those "chances" to be right on a planet this rare, i think is very hard.

#19 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 27 June 2005 - 11:44 AM

I also think a moon to light the night is a nice touch.

#20 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 June 2005 - 02:14 PM

I know they could. what i meant by just the right amount of gravity was that, well, gravity supports the atmosphere. different amounts of gravity would alter the atmosphere.

anyway, the point was that, everyone can pretty much agree, earth is a very rare planet, possibly the only planet that supports life, or one of the very, very few. Well, the whole process of evolution is all by chance. by "chance" mutation occurred, by "chance" it was for the better of the organism, and considering the number of species we have today, for all those "chances" to be right on a planet this rare, i think is very hard.

View Post



You are looking at situations as they exist, and then calculating the odds of getting there, using that reasoning the answer will always be 1:<insert big number> against, for any such situation. (note to self - I must retrieve my calculations on an individual existing to demonstrate this point).

Consider a simpler example, what are the odds of being dealt 4 aces straight up in stud poker? Are the odds any different than being dealt a 2(spades), 6(diamonds), jack(clubs), 9(clubs), 8(spades)? Now should you substitute the earth for the 4 aces, or should it be the other hand?



The Debatinator what about cloudy or moonless nights? :)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)