Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
KillurBluff

Where Are We To Find The Truth?

Recommended Posts

In this rampant age of deception what is the truth? Where should we look for it? Are we to trust in those Jesuits that brought us the Big Bang cosmology? Are we to trust the scientific community at large that demands we believe in evilution, lest we are called "Scientific Illiterates"? I contend we are only to find the ultimate 'Truth' within the Biblical pages that are 'Holy Spirit Inspired'.             Disclaimer            I must say i do not agree with everything to be found within the following, BUT......... merely wish for all to watch that will, and take away that which is to be found true....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can also use our discretion when reading scientific studies. When we remove the evolutionary assumptions  and look at the evidence itself, it can often be pretty enlightening and point towards the bible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can also use our discretion when reading scientific studies.

wow.

i wonder what the men of science thinks about that innocent little quip.

 

and before anyone starts questioning the truth of the above quote, you must remember that in regards to evolution the other side WILL be squelched.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find i must settle an earlier statement of mine on the 'Biblical Prophecy' thread. Where i stated 'I find no need of 'Apologetics', i'm mainly saying i do not agree at all with the prefix of the word 'Apologetics'. For our Biblical Narrative... is in need of no such 'Apology', of course i know the word itself, as it is used in this term, is not actually 'Apologizing'... I just do not like the word itself......... As i feel the Biblical narrative is easily understood by all. I do not believe we are in need of a more 'Descriptive' analogy as it were of English by any so called 'Higher' authoritative man.. Lest we are to be found spouting the old Vatican ideology that says we 'mere' humans can not really understand it's clear written language, hence 'WE' should not be allowed to read and understand it ourselves.... I'm also not saying we should not be compelled to 'explain' some things to atheist or other Christians.... Nor am i saying that there be no need of a Pastor or Deacon. I believe there to be a fine line as when we give an explanation to Biblical passages, vs we giving the 'Appearance' that mere man can not 'Understand' its content....As it has always been my summation that it is of each ourselves to read and ask for 'Holy Spirit' guidance as we learn and understand Biblical narrative. I'm in hopes that this will clear up my statement in regards to 'Apologetics'... I find more and more that it is indeed 'Scientism' that is a recent 'Cause' for 'Apologeticts' to some degree. As Christians are found to be 'Believers' in some aspects of 'Scientisim' and they feel the necessity to 'Inject' a meaning as it were to Biblical statements that would render a more 'Unison' and coherency with some secular sciences. Such as those whom contend for 'Literalness' when applying a Genesis account yet they would then apply a 'Analytical' approach to other statements of fact... So again i find myself to reinstate "Let the Bible found to be the Authority and let us not lift up the Sciences to be the Authority"... As we all know mans secular understanding or interpretation of the 'Sciences' will often render a non conformity with our Bible. When the Bible makes statements of facts in a literal stance then by all means that is just how it is meant to be understood... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love this new video from N.C.N. Although i have reservations on 1 or 2 points, overall, it's just a great presentation. As i have said, multiple times prior, i indeed take the Bible at its 'Word'.. But here i do find 1 instance where Mr. Riddle puts all inference on one Biblical text and subsequently disregarding all other text.... Nonetheless  an A+ presentation as i see it, overall... Hope you all enjoy this most thoughtful given lecture...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We can also use our discretion when reading scientific studies.

wow.

i wonder what the men of science thinks about that innocent little quip.

 

and before anyone starts questioning the truth of the above quote, you must remember that in regards to evolution the other side WILL be squelched.

 

I think he's talking about Evolution as in common ancestors of apes, man, bananas and fungi. 

 

The pioneers of science, the scientific method and scientific method had zero problem with the bible or Christianity proper. To contrary they had their basic assumption taken from Christian philosophy and the bible. After Materialists and Atheists took over Academia that fact got twisted and obscured a bit. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We can also use our discretion when reading scientific studies.

wow.

i wonder what the men of science thinks about that innocent little quip.

 

and before anyone starts questioning the truth of the above quote, you must remember that in regards to evolution the other side WILL be squelched.

 

I think he's talking about Evolution as in common ancestors of apes, man, bananas and fungi. 

 

The pioneers of science, the scientific method and scientific method had zero problem with the bible or Christianity proper. To contrary they had their basic assumption taken from Christian philosophy and the bible. After Materialists and Atheists took over Academia that fact got twisted and obscured a bit. 

 

 

 

I personally love science and often research the latest information. I have yet to see anything that contradicts creationism, but you have to look carefully ast all their ïnterpretation" of the evidence to the actual studies and what is meant.

 

My personal take on it, is that 1700 years of erosion in wide flat flood plains will leave more of a geological marker than a flood of one year. Sure the flood takes up a huge portion of geologic layering but not everything deep down. I place the carboniferous as the most representative of pre-flood conditions, and am in continuous wonder at the richness of life before the flood. I see the late Permian with its disarticulated fossils as representing the flood, right through to the early Triassic. The flood covering the period before during and after the PT boundary. It is shocking how universal the evidence is for this worldwide flood, but no one else has bothered to put all this evidence together. Creationists assume too much flood deposits and so this layer is just a little section in the middle of the flood according to creationists. And evolutionists give multiple other reasons for their "great extinction"or "great death"at the PT boundary. They are closer to the truth in this case, because science recognises this massive death event in the middle layers which creationist do not see.

 

So yes I love science, we can wade through the ages and see all sorts of information that tie in with the bible. Is the bible our only source of truth? No , logic says we are intelligent beings able to find out information, and the bible does not contain all knowledge. It focusses on the more important spirituality, not general knowledge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pioneers of science, the scientific method and scientific method had zero problem with the bible or Christianity proper. To contrary they had their basic assumption taken from Christian philosophy and the bible. After Materialists and Atheists took over Academia that fact got twisted and obscured a bit.

there you go, all wrapped up and ready to go.

 

a bit?

these people have pegged the crazy meter with their antics.

take that scoundrel that calls itself "doctor" richard arrowsmith for example.

i just hope that people in the right position fries the man for what he, and others like him, have done.

 

is evolution a reality?

changes in gene frequencies are, but this is a matter of genome activity and has nothing at all to do with "random mutations".

 

the thing is, this stuff was known to science for over 50 years, but yet they steadfastly maintain the "gradual accumulation" paradigm.

it HAD to be kept simple because complexity apparently doesn't evolve, and the eukaryote cell is probably the most complex object you will ever encounter.

 

i'll be honest, when it comes to evolution i am VERY skeptical about what i read.

 

if it wasn't for scientists like koonin, noble, ross, lynch, gould, glansdorf, and others like them, this stuff wouldn't be known to the layman.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stump every evolutionist with the Cambrian explosion. but of course creationists don't believe in the Cambrian explosion, so our major pro-argument is eliminated by some flood paradigm. 

 

One lady I met writes textbooks for the UK curriculum. She spent five hours trying to find an explanation and just could not. Sure the eukaryote or bacteria are complex, but to suddenly jump from 1000 genes in earlier Pre-cambrian to species appearing abruptly and without any fossil record of 10000 genes plus points to creation.

 

So suddenly nearly every phyla appears abruptly in the Ediacaran and early Cambrian. Without ANY fossil record. This points to nearly every phyla appearing suddenly (duh).  haha   Not evolving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One lady I met writes textbooks for the UK curriculum. She spent five hours trying to find an explanation and just could not.

At least part of the explanation probably lies in the fossilization potential of organisms as hard parts evolved. I find it hard to believe this lady you met wasn't aware of this. Also, the Cambrian 'explosion' is a bit of a misnomer since it refers to a period of about 20 million years. Plus the micro fossils collectively and informally known as the 'small shellies' contain possible ancestors of phyla such as brachiopods, molluscs and arthropods, in layers pre dating trilobite and other organisms that can be more clearly assigned to modern phyla. Some of these small shellies are found in late Pre Cambrian rock but most are in the earliest part of the Cambrian that used to be thought to be bereft of fossils.

 

Sure the eukaryote or bacteria are complex, but to suddenly jump from 1000 genes in earlier Pre-cambrian to species appearing abruptly and without any fossil record of 10000 genes plus points to creation.

How do you know how many genes they had ?

 

So suddenly nearly every phyla appears abruptly in the Ediacaran and early Cambrian. Without ANY fossil record. This points to nearly every phyla appearing suddenly (duh).  haha   Not evolving. 

 

There was certainly an apparent rapid diversification of phyla in the Cambrian. However, creationists always seem to overlook the fact that despite there being representatives of modern phyla ( a very broad taxonomic rank) you don't have anything like a modern fauna. You say every phylum suddenly appearing without an evolutionary record, well what about all the change since ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hows this 'tidbit' of indigestible nonsense the so called Cosmological Brainiacs  wish for the worlds masses to swallow and take seriously....

Theory claims to offer the first 'evidence' our Universe is a hologram

Everything you see and experience in 3D, including time, could be an illusion... Despite how extreme the idea sounds, theories about the Universe being an illusion or a hologram aren't new. Now, researchers claim to have found evidence towards proving this hypothesis.

A team of theoretical physicists at the University of Southampton believes it has found signs our Universe is an illusion by studying the cosmic microwave background (CMB) – radiation left over from the Big Bang.A holographic Universe means information that makes up what we perceive as a 3D reality is stored on a 2D surface, including time. This means, essentially, everything you see and experience is an illusion.

READ NEXT

  • By ABIGAIL BEALL

"Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions, and your perception of time, in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field,†says Professor Kostas Skenderis from the University of Southampton.

“The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a 3D image is encoded in a 2D surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire Universe is encoded." Another way of simplifying this is through 3D films. Although not an example of a hologram, 3D films create the illusion of 3D objects from a flat 2D screen. The difference in our 3D Universe is that we can touch objects and the 'projection' is 'real', from our perspective.While theories of holographic universes have been around since the 1990s, the latest study, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, contains the first proof, the researchers say.To find the 'evidence', the researchers developed models of the holographic Universe that can be tested by peering back in time as far as 13 billion years, at the furthest reaches of the observable Universe. These models depend on the theory of quantum gravity, a theory that challenges the accepted version of classical gravity. The holographic principle says gravity comes from thin, vibrating strings which are all holograms of a flat, 2D Universe.

READ NEXT

Recent advances in telescopes and sensing equipment have allowed scientists to detect a vast amount of data hidden in the 'white noise' or microwaves left over from the moment the Universe was created. Using this information, the team was able to make comparisons between networks of features in the data and quantum field theory. They found some of the simplest quantum field theories could explain nearly all cosmological observations of the early Universe.

This, they claim, moves quantum gravity away from being an alternative theory and towards an accepted model; the first time such 'evidence' has been found.

"We are proposing using this holographic Universe, which is a very different model of the Big Bang than the popularly accepted one that relies on gravity and inflation," said Niayesh Afshordi, from the University of Waterloo and Perimeter Institute, and lead author of the study.

"Each of these models makes distinct predictions that we can test as we refine our data and improve our theoretical understanding, all within the next five years,†Afshordi said. “Holography is a huge leap forward in the way we think about the structure and creation of the Universe,†added Skenderis.    Now this is no 'New' idea, that is a surety..... What links will the secular pseudo intellectuals go? They wish for 'ANYTHING OTHER THAN GOD' to pass as fact. Just as i have stated multiple times prior here on other threads, the entire worlds Cosmology is utterly untenable, to say the least.. How many more evolutionary fairytales will the Darwinian deluded comprise? Stocked full of equation after never ending equation all in attempts to disregard Holy Spirit Inspired Biblical Authority? If indeed you find no truth whatsoever in the 'Holographic' fairytale, how about your C.G.I. Universe?? 

 
Cosmic rays offer clue our universe could be a computer simulation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One lady I met writes textbooks for the UK curriculum. She spent five hours trying to find an explanation and just could not.

At least part of the explanation probably lies in the fossilization potential of organisms as hard parts evolved. I find it hard to believe this lady you met wasn't aware of this. Also, the Cambrian 'explosion' is a bit of a misnomer since it refers to a period of about 20 million years. Plus the micro fossils collectively and informally known as the 'small shellies' contain possible ancestors of phyla such as brachiopods, molluscs and arthropods, in layers pre dating trilobite and other organisms that can be more clearly assigned to modern phyla. Some of these small shellies are found in late Pre Cambrian rock but most are in the earliest part of the Cambrian that used to be thought to be bereft of fossils.

 

Sure the eukaryote or bacteria are complex, but to suddenly jump from 1000 genes in earlier Pre-cambrian to species appearing abruptly and without any fossil record of 10000 genes plus points to creation.

How do you know how many genes they had ?

 

So suddenly nearly every phyla appears abruptly in the Ediacaran and early Cambrian. Without ANY fossil record. This points to nearly every phyla appearing suddenly (duh).  haha   Not evolving. 

 

There was certainly an apparent rapid diversification of phyla in the Cambrian. However, creationists always seem to overlook the fact that despite there being representatives of modern phyla ( a very broad taxonomic rank) you don't have anything like a modern fauna. You say every phylum suddenly appearing without an evolutionary record, well what about all the change since ?

 

 

 

She did have a few comebacks, but she was honest enough to realise that they were not intellectually satisfying.  Although soft bodied fossils are less abundant, still we have them from the Ediacaran onwards, but nothing before then. To assume they are there is an assumption that evolution exists without the evidence to support it. That "soft bodies don't fossilise easily " explanation is mere hopeful guesswork, based on  assuming evolution where the evidence is that there were no soft body precursors and yet evidence for soft bodies does exist in later layers. 

 

You make a good point about number of genes, and yes your point would apply to phyla that no longer exist. But there is obviously a recogniseable phenotype/feature  match between those original phyla and modern species of the same phyla, otherwise why would they classify both groups as such?   And to assume the original species were of vastly less number of genes should have at least some evidence behind the assumption.  Without evolutionary assumption, we would naturally assume that creatures of the past being similar in phenotype would have vague similarities in genotype to modern species rather than vastly different genotypes as you would like to claim. Yours is the less likely assumption. Sure the Cambrian explosion does not disprove evolution but reduces it to a number of hopeful assumptions in the face of the evidence that multiple phyla did appear without fossil precursor.

 

Regarding the small shellies, more hopeful guesswork, judging by your own wording.

 

You say "There was certainly an apparent rapid diversification of phyla in the Cambrian."   Please admit that it is only "apparent" under evolutionary assumptions. Except for some definite cases of diversified clades, like trilobites, there is no actual evidence that all those species within all those phyla had experienced rapid diversification. They appear fully formed in the fossil record in such numbers and so consistently without fossil precursor that evolution is the less intellectually satisfying assumption based on the evidence. Keep telling your mind... evidence is what counts, not assumption.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spotted New-path, that bit about "rapid diversity". I was going to address that but you spotted that he was inserting a type of diversity into the facts. (essentially making the diversity belong to evolution with the epithet, "rapid").

 

The true diversity is there, but it's a diversity of intelligently design, in there being many different body plans, so it is misleading for Wibble to call that diversity, "rapid" because then that's question-begging, because it ASSUMES the diversity is something that came from a rapid evolution but as you have said, that is what is missing. In fact the facts only show the diversity and the evolution is conspicuously absent and all Wibble offered for that was a slothful induction of appealing to the 0.00001% evidence he thinks might show some evolution.

 

Evolution is conspicuously absent in the pre-Cambrian just like it generally is throughout the fossil record. I would invite you to read message one of this thread New-Path as there is a simple way to deduce when the absence is conspicuous. Logical notation informs us that a "conspicuous absence" of evidence is actually a strong falsification using the modus tollens rule if there is a high expectation for the evidence to be there but it isn't, and is instead only excused by conjectural excuses;

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6685-missing-transitional-intermediates/

 

So logically there is no rule saying that this diversity must be caused by evolution, any more than diversity in a scrap yard must be, because like with the scrap yard, we would only be seeing a diversity of design. After all when we look at the Cambrian and we see many bizarre things that walked on legs, there are many different body plans just for that one function of walking, showing that the diversity we are seeing, is the diversity of differing viable designs. All of them are, "whole" as designs, too, in an "era" when we might expect evolutionary experimentation, so to speak, but the truth is everything appears fully designed and mega-complex, even the trilobites eye was one of the most sophisticated there has ever been, at a stage of history when you would expect simpler eyes closer to light-patches, to be evolving. In other words it's not just the missing transitionals, it's that everything we expect of evolution is conspicuously absent, and everything we expect of miraculous design, is present, making design the most parsimonious explanation as you alluded to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spotted New-path, that bit about "rapid diversity". I was going to address that but you spotted that he was inserting a type of diversity into the facts. (essentially making the diversity belong to evolution with the epithet, "rapid").

 

The true diversity is there, but it's a diversity of intelligently design, in there being many different body plans, so it is misleading for Wibble to call that diversity, "rapid" because then that's question-begging, because it ASSUMES the diversity is something that came from a rapid evolution but as you have said, that is what is missing. In fact the facts only show the diversity and the evolution is conspicuously absent and all Wibble offered for that was a slothful induction of appealing to the 0.00001% evidence he thinks might show some evolution.

 

Evolution is conspicuously absent in the pre-Cambrian just like it generally is throughout the fossil record. I would invite you to read message one of this thread New-Path as there is a simple way to deduce when the absence is conspicuous. Logical notation informs us that a "conspicuous absence" of evidence is actually a strong falsification using the modus tollens rule if there is a high expectation for the evidence to be there but it isn't, and is instead only excused by conjectural excuses;

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6685-missing-transitional-intermediates/

 

So logically there is no rule saying that this diversity must be caused by evolution, any more than diversity in a scrap yard must be, because like with the scrap yard, we would only be seeing a diversity of design. After all when we look at the Cambrian and we see many bizarre things that walked on legs, there are many different body plans just for that one function of walking, showing that the diversity we are seeing, is the diversity of differing viable designs. All of them are, "whole" as designs, too, in an "era" when we might expect evolutionary experimentation, so to speak, but the truth is everything appears fully designed and mega-complex, even the trilobites eye was one of the most sophisticated there has ever been, at a stage of history when you would expect simpler eyes closer to light-patches, to be evolving. In other words it's not just the missing transitionals, it's that everything we expect of evolution is conspicuously absent, and everything we expect of miraculous design, is present, making design the most parsimonious explanation as you alluded to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One lady I met writes textbooks for the UK curriculum. She spent five hours trying to find an explanation and just could not. Sure the eukaryote or bacteria are complex, but to suddenly jump from 1000 genes in earlier Pre-cambrian to species appearing abruptly and without any fossil record of 10000 genes plus points to creation.

there are 2 possibilities, both equally likely:

1. a catalytic event.

2. multiple abiogenesis events.

 

i find it odd that both of the above "alludes to ID".

this brings up an even subtler notion, what exactly is an "allusion to ID"?

does this mean that peer review is infested with . . . what exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spotted New-path, that bit about "rapid diversity". I was going to address that but you spotted that he was inserting a type of diversity into the facts. (essentially making the diversity belong to evolution with the epithet, "rapid").

 

The true diversity is there, but it's a diversity of intelligently design, in there being many different body plans, so it is misleading for Wibble to call that diversity, "rapid" because then that's question-begging, because it ASSUMES the diversity is something that came from a rapid evolution but as you have said, that is what is missing. In fact the facts only show the diversity and the evolution is conspicuously absent and all Wibble offered for that was a slothful induction of appealing to the 0.00001% evidence he thinks might show some evolution.

 

Evolution is conspicuously absent in the pre-Cambrian just like it generally is throughout the fossil record. I would invite you to read message one of this thread New-Path as there is a simple way to deduce when the absence is conspicuous. Logical notation informs us that a "conspicuous absence" of evidence is actually a strong falsification using the modus tollens rule if there is a high expectation for the evidence to be there but it isn't, and is instead only excused by conjectural excuses;

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6685-missing-transitional-intermediates/

 

So logically there is no rule saying that this diversity must be caused by evolution, any more than diversity in a scrap yard must be, because like with the scrap yard, we would only be seeing a diversity of design. After all when we look at the Cambrian and we see many bizarre things that walked on legs, there are many different body plans just for that one function of walking, showing that the diversity we are seeing, is the diversity of differing viable designs. All of them are, "whole" as designs, too, in an "era" when we might expect evolutionary experimentation, so to speak, but the truth is everything appears fully designed and mega-complex, even the trilobites eye was one of the most sophisticated there has ever been, at a stage of history when you would expect simpler eyes closer to light-patches, to be evolving. In other words it's not just the missing transitionals, it's that everything we expect of evolution is conspicuously absent, and everything we expect of miraculous design, is present, making design the most parsimonious explanation as you alluded to.

i'm reasonably satisfied that a great deal of evolution can happen within a very short period of time.

my question along these lines is, what causes "macro evolution"?

 

also, i am assuming that the cell contains a program, but unlike shapiro i do not believe it possess an intelligence.

this "intelligence" is only an artifact of cellular activity, IOW it's the program that makes the cell appear intelligent.

 

can we equate the cell with a computer?

instead of printouts and files, the biological computer spits out various lifeforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What If: i'm reasonably satisfied that a great deal of evolution can happen within a very short period of time.

my question along these lines is, what causes "macro evolution"?

 

A credulity fallacy then a question that presumes the fallacy is sufficient to grant the truth of the thing believed in.

 

:P

 

I can tell you what causes macro-evolution. Continued neurotic agreement that it's true. The only thing that can cause macro evolution is people since it doesn't actually exist and never did. 

 

 

 

What If: i'm reasonably satisfied that a great deal of evolution can happen within a very short period of time

 

I know, and every time you say it I shake my head because like the bible said, the natural man has this capacity to fool himself into believing any answer there is except the true one, which is that God created life.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She did have a few comebacks, but she was honest enough to realise that they were not intellectually satisfying. Although soft bodied fossils are less abundant, still we have them from the Ediacaran onwards, but nothing before then. To assume they are there is an assumption that evolution exists without the evidence to support it. That "soft bodies don't fossilise easily " explanation is mere hopeful guesswork, based on assuming evolution where the evidence is that there were no soft body precursors and yet evidence for soft bodies does exist in later layers.

 

How is the claim that soft bodies don’t fossilize easily “hopeful guessworkâ€. Are you claiming that soft bodies should be as easily preserved as shells and exoskeletons ? What the Ediacaran fauna evolved from I do not know but I think I’m justified in assuming they evolved from something given the enormous amount of evidence we have for the ToE overall.

 

You ought to worry about the far greater problems that face your belief of instant creation of all kinds. Since the Ediacaran conditions were apparently so favourable for preservation, why has not a single shell, bone or sclerite been found mixed in any of these Precambrian layers ? Any ad hoc idea of pre flood geographical separation of assemblages (Mikes’s go to excuse) is a non starter because hard part fossils will be found locally, just separated in different (younger) strata.

 

You make a good point about number of genes, and yes your point would apply to phyla that no longer exist. But there is obviously a recogniseable phenotype/feature match between those original phyla and modern species of the same phyla, otherwise why would they classify both groups as such? And to assume the original species were of vastly less number of genes should have at least some evidence behind the assumption. Without evolutionary assumption, we would naturally assume that creatures of the past being similar in phenotype would have vague similarities in genotype to modern species rather than vastly different genotypes as you would like to claim. Yours is the less likely assumption.

 

Where have I claimed that Cambrian phyla would have vastly less number of genes and vastly different genotype than modern species ? You’re putting words in my mouth. They would have shared many of the same genes actually (as the study of developmental toolkit genes has shown).

 

You say "There was certainly an apparent rapid diversification of phyla in the Cambrian." Please admit that it is only "apparent" under evolutionary assumptions. Except for some definite cases of diversified clades, like trilobites, there is no actual evidence that all those species within all those phyla had experienced rapid diversification. They appear fully formed in the fossil record in such numbers and so consistently without fossil precursor that evolution is the less intellectually satisfying assumption based on the evidence. Keep telling your mind... evidence is what counts, not assumption.

 

I wasn’t talking about diversification within phyla (although I note you admit the case for trilobites), I was just referring to the apparent rapid appearance of nearly all extant phyla in the Cambrian. As I so often see on this forum with you guys however, the most important point is ignored/avoided. So I’ll repeat it again:

 

There was certainly an apparent rapid diversification of phyla in the Cambrian. However, creationists always seem to overlook the fact that despite there being representatives of modern phyla ( a very broad taxonomic rank) you don't have anything like a modern fauna. You say every phylum suddenly appearing without an evolutionary record, well what about all the change since ?

 

Remember your own words though – evidence is what counts, not assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One lady I met writes textbooks for the UK curriculum. She spent five hours trying to find an explanation and just could not. Sure the eukaryote or bacteria are complex, but to suddenly jump from 1000 genes in earlier Pre-cambrian to species appearing abruptly and without any fossil record of 10000 genes plus points to creation.

there are 2 possibilities, both equally likely:

1. a catalytic event.

2. multiple abiogenesis events.

 

i find it odd that both of the above "alludes to ID".

this brings up an even subtler notion, what exactly is an "allusion to ID"?

does this mean that peer review is infested with . . . what exactly.

 

 

A multiple abiogenesis event............sorry you should think carefully about claims for abiogenesis.

No-one has yet come up with even an hypothesis that could possibly create abiogenesis. You need a hypothesis first then a theory. The reason no-one can do it is that the amino acids which are the building blocks of life require MULTIPLE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE environments to generate. Maybe you can take a shot at it. But in the meantime loose comments like that show the extent to which evolutionists have to scrape for evidence despite the facts. And it is not only recently evolutionists have scratched around for facts until they make up stuff, the appearance of a few fake missing links in the past reveal the pressure in the scientific community to come up with this stuff. Yes the media loves proofs for abiogenesis, but the scientific reality is that no valid hypothesis exists.

 

 

 

Sure evolution comes up with a lot of guesswork to explain thousands of species suddenly appearing in the fossil record.

 

We have two theories here.

1) One believes there are thousands of species suddenly appearing. the evidence shows that.

2) the other believes that there was a catalytic event   that caused multiple species to suddenly evolve without leaving any trace of that process

 

Creation is the obvious better choice if you are not bound by biased education or intellectually stunted. I assume you are not intellectually stunted. Therefore think about the fact that somehow educational bias crept into the educational system due to a well written book by Darwin. It was well written, I enjoy it. I am sure even he was surprised how readily the media loved this alternative to creation. Then it became the widely accepted norm a little too rapidly for normal scientific process.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

She did have a few comebacks, but she was honest enough to realise that they were not intellectually satisfying. Although soft bodied fossils are less abundant, still we have them from the Ediacaran onwards, but nothing before then. To assume they are there is an assumption that evolution exists without the evidence to support it. That "soft bodies don't fossilise easily " explanation is mere hopeful guesswork, based on assuming evolution where the evidence is that there were no soft body precursors and yet evidence for soft bodies does exist in later layers.

 

How is the claim that soft bodies don’t fossilize easily “hopeful guessworkâ€. Are you claiming that soft bodies should be as easily preserved as shells and exoskeletons ? What the Ediacaran fauna evolved from I do not know but I think I’m justified in assuming they evolved from something given the enormous amount of evidence we have for the ToE overall.

 

You ought to worry about the far greater problems that face your belief of instant creation of all kinds. Since the Ediacaran conditions were apparently so favourable for preservation, why has not a single shell, bone or sclerite been found mixed in any of these Precambrian layers ? Any ad hoc idea of pre flood geographical separation of assemblages (Mikes’s go to excuse) is a non starter because hard part fossils will be found locally, just separated in different (younger) strata.

 

You make a good point about number of genes, and yes your point would apply to phyla that no longer exist. But there is obviously a recogniseable phenotype/feature match between those original phyla and modern species of the same phyla, otherwise why would they classify both groups as such? And to assume the original species were of vastly less number of genes should have at least some evidence behind the assumption. Without evolutionary assumption, we would naturally assume that creatures of the past being similar in phenotype would have vague similarities in genotype to modern species rather than vastly different genotypes as you would like to claim. Yours is the less likely assumption.

 

Where have I claimed that Cambrian phyla would have vastly less number of genes and vastly different genotype than modern species ? You’re putting words in my mouth. They would have shared many of the same genes actually (as the study of developmental toolkit genes has shown).

 

You say "There was certainly an apparent rapid diversification of phyla in the Cambrian." Please admit that it is only "apparent" under evolutionary assumptions. Except for some definite cases of diversified clades, like trilobites, there is no actual evidence that all those species within all those phyla had experienced rapid diversification. They appear fully formed in the fossil record in such numbers and so consistently without fossil precursor that evolution is the less intellectually satisfying assumption based on the evidence. Keep telling your mind... evidence is what counts, not assumption.

 

I wasn’t talking about diversification within phyla (although I note you admit the case for trilobites), I was just referring to the apparent rapid appearance of nearly all extant phyla in the Cambrian. As I so often see on this forum with you guys however, the most important point is ignored/avoided. So I’ll repeat it again:

 

There was certainly an apparent rapid diversification of phyla in the Cambrian. However, creationists always seem to overlook the fact that despite there being representatives of modern phyla ( a very broad taxonomic rank) you don't have anything like a modern fauna. You say every phylum suddenly appearing without an evolutionary record, well what about all the change since ?

 

Remember your own words though – evidence is what counts, not assumption.

 

 

Plants are soft bodied. How do we know that these species existed? Fossil evidence.  So we can confirm that despite soft bodied organisms not fossilising well, they exist in abundant numbers from the Cambrian Explosion onwards. Thats science for you. Suddenly multiple organisms , soft bodied and otherwise, appear in the fossil record, and from that time onwards even soft bodied fossils occur. But they did not occur before then. The evidence obviously favors creationism.

 

Regarding the layering, species radiate out from niche locations when conditions become favorable. Evolutionists see layered groupings of fossils and assume the later ones evolved from the earlier ones. Trilobites radiated out from Siberia when conditions allowed then adapted. I believe the layering is explained by varied conditions, and pre-existing organisms radiate out when conditions become favorable. Of course when ice-caps formed and large land masses became exposed,  terrestrial organisms would develop populations on those landmasses. This is an observed phenomenon, that species expand into favorable territories when conditions allow.

 

Sure you didn't claim that Cambrian phyla would have vastly less genes. therefore to take evolution seriously one has to have a better explanation for the appearance of these organisms that would logically have 10000 genes plus, from earlier organisms that would have had about 1000. (if you agree with me that their genetic make-up would be approximately the same as today). There seems to be little change in complexity between the Cambrian and now, yet vast yet unproven and invisible claimed changes by evolutionists before then. 

 

The place where evolutionists require the most evidence (huge advances in complexity) is the place where nothing is seen. Absolutely nothing. Just a little hope, maybe the Cambrian Explosion comes from little shellies.

 

You say:    ""I wasn’t talking about diversification within phyla (although I note you admit the case for trilobites), I was just referring to the apparent rapid appearance of nearly all extant phyla in the Cambrian"""" .  Once again you are saying something is APPARENT when there is nothing apparent at all in the evidence itself. It just FEELS apparent to you because you assume evolution. Show me some APPARENT evidence that this rapid appearance was through diversification?

 

 

However, creationists always seem to overlook the fact that despite there being representatives of modern phyla ( a very broad taxonomic rank) you don't have anything like a modern fauna. You say every phylum suddenly appearing without an evolutionary record, well what about all the change since ?

 

 

 

 
The evidence is that trilobites and other organisms radiate out from niche environments when conditions become favorable. Just like today , when researchers discover new niche environments then we can find multiple undiscovered species. So obviously we have not observed every life form that exploded back then because even on the surface of this planet today we have not observed every extant species. So it would be illogical to assume ancient fossils of undiscovered species in niche environments are more discoverable in deep layers of the earth than extant species on the surface of this planet (which are still regularly discovered). These previously undiscovered species then radiate out from their niche environments when conditions become suitable and become more discoverable due to sheer numbers. This is why some species only appear later than the Cambrian explosion. Some modern fauna/flora are in clades with undiscovered species of previously niche environments. Other modern fauna/flora are easily recognisable from ancient fossils.
 
My other point is that from a phenotype perspective, yes there is observable rapid evolutionary adaption within clades. But these often remain recognisable from their common ancestor (eg species within the trilobite clade are recognisable as trilobites)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been much 'ADO' from many in regards to Trumps announcement of a 'Space Force'... Many believe Trump just made an 'Off The Cuff' decree to such a 'Space Force'. As we see here most believe this is the case... 

Space Trump orders creation of independent space force — but Congress will still have its say
By: Valerie Insinna and Aaron Mehta     President Trump on Monday announced the creation of a new, sixth branch of the military, the Space Force, to be an independent force on par with existing branches. The move came despite reservations from some top military leaders.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday appeared to sign an executive order directing the Pentagon to create a new â€Space Force,†a move that could radically transform the U.S. military by pulling space functions variously owned by the Air Force, Navy and other military branches into a single independent service.

But while the president’s support for a new military branch is notable, experts -- and a powerful member of Congress -- believe Trump still needs the support of Congress to make a space force happen.

“I am hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces,†Trump said during a meeting of the National Space Council.

“That’s a big statement. We are going to have the Air Force and we are going to have the Space Force. Separate but equal. It is going to be something. So important,†Trump added. “General Dunford, if you would carry that assignment out, I would be very greatly honored.â€

Dunford responded in the affirmative, telling Trump, “We got you.â€

 
 

According to a White House pool report, the president signed the executive order establishing the Space Force at about 12:36 p.m. EST.

However, a readout issued from the White House later that day of the executive order contained no language related to the creation of a new military branch, leaving open the question of whether Trump has actually issued formal guidance to the military.

The Air Force referred all questions to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

However, a defense official, speaking on background, said “The Joint Staff will work closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, other DoD stakeholders and the Congress to implement the President's guidance."

Trump’s support for creating a separate branch for space is a break from his own adminsitration’s stance last year, as well as that of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.

“At a time when we are trying to integrate the Department’s joint warfighting functions, I do not wish to add a separate service that would likely present a narrower and even parochial approach to space operations vice an integrated one we’re constructing under our current approach,†Mattis wrote in a 2017 letter to members of Congress.

But in recent months, Trump has signaled he was intrigued by the idea of a stand alone space force, saying in a May 1 speech that “We’re actually thinking of a sixth†military branch for space.

At the time, that statement confounded Air Force leaders who had publicly opposed the creation of a separate space service, leading them to adopt a softer tone when talking about the potential for Space Force to avoid being seen as out of step with Trump.   What many believe, just as this article suggest that Trumps decree confounded Air Force leaderswhen as a matter of fact, this has absolutely no basis to be found in reality whatsoever.. These articles are at best misleading, at worst can be described as an outright lie..... I say this because of a surety, its not only i whom can find the following information. Surely these so called 'Reporters' could of found this out very easily, as did i.... Lets take a look......  AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY MOVEMENT AND MANEUVER IN DEEP SPACE: A Framework to Leverage Advanced Propulsion by BRIAN E. HANS, Major, USAF CHRISTOPHER D. JEFFERSON, Major, USAF JOSHUA M. WEHRLE, Major, USAF A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF MILITARY OPERATIONAL ART AND SCIENCE Advisor: Lt Col Peter A. Garretson Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama April 2017 Introduction This chapter of Air University’s Space Horizons Research Group presents capability requirements, potential solutions, and strategic rationale for achieving movement and maneuver advantage in deep space. In this context, deep space is anything beyond geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO). Driving the research are two primary assumptions underpinning the need for investment in deep space propulsion. The first assumption is that growing international activity, commerce, and industry in space extends the global commons, thus creating a military-economic imperative for the United States Department of Defense (DoD) to expand its protection of U.S. interests by defending space lines of communication. Although there are wide-ranging reasons to expand the space-faring capabilities of the human species, from the capitalistic to the existential, the fact of its occurrence offers the U.S. immense strategic opportunity. Section 1, operating on this assumption, recommends capability-based requirements for deep space operations given a projected future operating environment. The second driving assumption underpinning this study is that improved movement and maneuver capabilities in deep space offer a wide array of benefits for the current National Security Enterprise, and for this reason alone demands attention in the form of disciplined investment. Furthermore, because the core functional capability required for deep space operations is in-space propulsion, the requirement necessitates a materiel solution. Although there are significant implications for the other DOTMLPF elements (e.g., requisite changes to Doctrine, Organization, Training, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities), they are not addressed by this study. Section 1.1, operating on the above assumption, highlights advanced and potential breakthrough propulsion technologies as candidate solutions to address the capability gap. Mach Effect Thrusters and EmDrive emerge as the most enticing potential. breakthroughs because they offer virtually free thrust in exchange for electricity and are relatively inexpensive to investigate, yet much remains unproven. Section 1.2 continues by presenting two complementary approaches to the assessment of candidate technologies and pioneering research, along with cost implications. Section 1.3 closes with the strategic opportunity offered by placing advanced propulsion within a chain-link system of systems, resilient to hacking, replication, or leapfrogging. Section 2 of this study recommends a two-part solution for acquiring deep space propulsion capabilities, fully acknowledging the parallel requirement to create affordable access to space. Section 2.1 involves a brief analysis of current efforts by the DoD and USAF to streamline acquisition timelines, followed by a proposed acquisition model to develop and deploy deep space propulsion technologies while collaborating with agencies and organizations external to the USAF. Section 2.2 discusses a theoretical organization formed and chartered to develop, test, and acquire deep space propulsion technology and includes what the organization would potentially look like. Finally, Section 3 provides an extended strategic rationale for deep space propulsion to close the study with further elucidation of the underlying imperative. The entirety of this work provides decision-makers a framework to identify and leverage advanced propulsion technologies to enhance Joint Force capabilities in deep space, in particular to achieve movement and maneuver advantage. Section 1 – Capability Requirements Definition “The Air Force needs to focus on true "strategic" objectives in space. These are objectives for the coming Century... True space operations will spread across the solar system in the decades ahead and the nation that controls them will dominate the planet. Focusing on LEO is akin to having a Navy that never leaves sight of the shore. The US Military needs to focus on "blue-water" space operations – GEO and above. US military space operations need to be in deep space, initially all of cislunar space, with an eye upon the entire inner solar system. To operate in deep space one needs to use the resources there, starting with fuel from asteroids. Once this is recognized, the military-economic imperative of identifying and protecting these assets becomes clear. The focus... should be to be sure on low-cost access to real outer space – with "space" beginning at GEO. New means of moving around in space are more important than just getting off the ground.†- Brigadier General (Retired) S. Pete Worden, USAF1 The Space Warfighting Construct (SWC) has reoriented the U.S. National Security Space Community toward improvements in resiliency, operations, and force presentation to the Joint Force Commander across all space mission areas. Although the SWC successfully reprioritized current and future investments in treating space as a warfighting domain, the nation is at risk of falling behind in the development of national power in space commensurate with the ambitions of private industry and peer competitors. In the commercial space industry, capital and capability are reaching an expansion threshold for the creation of a cislunar marketplace in which tourism, lunar real estate, and access to resources from other near-Earth objects are the primary commodities. Meanwhile, NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) created requirements advancing deep space propulsion, proximity operations, and noncooperative capture and deflection—all requisite capabilities of a Joint Force operating in deep space. Finally, the opportunistic policies, intent, and actions of space-faring peer competitors such as China, Russia, and India, along with civil and commercial endeavors in space suggest a future operating environment in which: ï‚· More than one nation mines and moves asteroids ï‚· More than one nation mines material from the lunar surface ï‚· Nations either can, or have appetites to build solar power satellites in GEO and large habitats or depots at Lagrange Points in cislunar space ï‚· There is a desire by both industry and nations to create a hydrogen-based economy ï‚· There is a desire by both industry and nations to move manufacturing off-Earth ï‚· There is a desire by both industry and nations to become a multi-planetary species ï‚· The space economy is growing at a rate that it might eclipse the total terrestrial GDP ï‚· Nations must police their own commerce and may be deputized to police others, or asked to behave in hostile manners toward other nation’s activities (visit, board, search, seize) As the Air Force Future Operating Concept states, “Continued expansion into space and cyberspace will increase the magnitude of the Air Force’s operating area. The Air Force of 2035 will continue to perform five core missions, but advanced technologies and approaches will extend their scope.†2 Simply putting “space†in front of the existing USAF core missions in Figure 1 merely reinforces the concept that deep space operations are an extension of the use of the military instrument of power on Earth. However, an expanded operating area in space carries its own challenges and opportunities, offering different ways and means of wielding the military instrument of power. Thus, the roles and missions of the United States Air Force in space are also subject to change. Furthermore, because space power theory is based on more than military capability alone, parallels are drawn to the U.S. Navy’s political-economic role in fostering trade relationships while protecting sea lines of communication and overseas colonies throughout U.S. history.   Now this is by no means all there is to 'Know' of the subject... As you read through these and other papers they all imply that 'WE' have never been further than L.E.O. which is where the I.S.S. is currently located.... If you believe me to be in err. Let me post some of what N.A.S.A. actually states as a 'FACT' themselves. As i would not wish to 'ADD' anything nor imply anything out of context... https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/iss_utilization_2017b-tagged.pdf   National Aeronautics and Space Administration International Space Station Facilities Research in Space 2017 and Beyond  Welcome to the International Space Station 4 The International Space Station (ISS) is an unprecedented human achievement from conception to construction, to operation and long-term utilization of a research platform on the frontier of space. Fully assembled and continuously inhabited by all space agency partners, this orbiting laboratory provides a unique environment in which to conduct multidisciplinary research and technology development that drives space exploration, basic discovery and Earth benefits. The ISS is uniquely capable of unraveling the mysteries of our universe— from the evolution of our planet and life on Earth to technology advancements and understanding the effects of spaceflight on the human body. This outpost also serves to facilitate human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit to other destinations in our solar system through continued habitation and experience. This orbiting laboratory is humanity’s largest foothold in space. Exploration, research and discovery, bound with international cooperation and commercial development, serve to highlight the best that we can be. We look forward to sharing this brochure, which outlines and highlights our ISS research capabilities and potential as we continue to push the bounds of on-orbit research.  Perhaps i simply 'extract' what i believe??? But i think not... As i believe my reading abilities are of at least equal to that of any 'High School' student... Research Goals of Many Nations It is the unique blend of unified and diversified goals among the world’s space agencies that will lead to improvements in life on Earth for all people of all nations. While the various space agency partners may emphasize different aspects of research to achieve their goals in the use of the ISS, they are unified in several important overarching goals. All of the agencies recognize the importance of leveraging the ISS as an education platform to encourage, inspire and ultimately motivate today’s youth to pursue careers in math, science and engineering: educating the children of today to be the leaders and space explorers of tomorrow. Advancing our knowledge in the areas of human physiology, biology, material and physical sciences and translating that knowledge to health, socio-economic and environmental benefits on Earth is another common goal of the agencies: returning the knowledge gained in space research for the benefit of society. Finally, all the agencies are unified in their goals to apply knowledge gained through ISS research in human physiology, radiation, materials science and engineering to enable future space exploration missions: preparing for the human exploration of destinations beyond low-Earth orbit.  Seems to me that 'They' always must 'ADD' references to "Evolution" and a "Unified" singular peoples... The ISS has become a unique laboratory in space since its initial habitation in 2000 by the Expedition 1 crewmembers. At that time, the Zvezda Service Module of the Russian Segment was the primary module for conducting research. The US Destiny laboratory arrived on orbit in 2001 and provided researchers additional capabilities and facilities. The ISS capabilities for conducting research expanded significantly in 2008 with the addition of the European Space Agency (ESA) Columbus module and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) Kibo laboratory, as well as several external platforms. The ISS Russian Segment expanded with the inclusion of the Mini Research Modules (MRMs)— Poisk (MRM2) and Rassvet (MRM1)—in 2009-2010. Over these final years of assembly, many initial experiments were completed in the newest racks and the crew complement onboard the ISS doubled to accommodate 6 rotating crewmembers; thus, our transition from “early utilization†to “full utilization†of the ISS became reality. At this time, construction and enhancement of the ISS Russian Segment continues. The Multipurpose Laboratory Module (MLM), which is scheduled for launch in 2017, will be the largest Russian laboratory in the ISS complex. Following the MLM, Node Module and Scientific-Power Module will be launched in 2019. All of these modules, as well as the existing ones, will provide new capabilities for accommodation of existing and next-generation research facilities. Early science on the ISS has taught us much about what to expect as additional research facilities become operational. Many hypotheses about what will happen without gravity are being challenged across the scientific spectrum. Data from ISS experiments are causing scientists to rethink existing models and propose different lines of research as they seek to understand new data from orbit. Rather than waiting years for the next flight opportunity, ISS discoveries generate new hypotheses that can often be tested in a short period of time—in the same way that scientists would follow a compelling result in a laboratory on Earth. We are able to push the bounds of previous research and extend the duration of investigations over many months and even years. We do not yet know what will be the most important knowledge or benefit gained from the ISS; however, through dedication to research, we do know that some amazing discoveries are on their way! If i'm to be found in err. as per these N.A.S.A. papers in regards to my personal understanding by all means point this 'Unbeknownst' understand of the written language out to me, please....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This fella may not be so crazy lol.. I will 1st post the N.A.S.A. pdf that supports his assertions, then the video.. You can all go and look this up for yourselves at Science.gov. In the search box type in Earths Plasma Shield then see.....

Specification of the near-Earth space environment with SHIELDS   Then also read A MAGNETIC SHIELD/ DUAL PURPOSE o O O tO I ,-- ,O u_ U r_ 0', t'- 0 Z _ 0 MISSION FINAL REPORT: 1993-1994 NASA/USRA Advanced Design Program by Duke University Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science Durham, North Carolina 27708-0300 July, 1994 Professor Franklin H. Seth Watkins Cocks _ Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................. 4 Overview ............................................................................................... 5 Payload Design ........................................................................................ 6 Cryostat Design ....................................................................................... 6 Coil Design ............................................................................................ 8 Coil Charging .......................................................................................... 10 Instruments ............................................................................................ 11 Telemetry .............................................................................................. 12 Power ................................................................................................... 13 Predicting Orbital Effects of the Ship's Field ...................................................... 13 Scientific Experiment ................................................................................. 14 Coil Orientation ....................................................................................... 16 Mass Shielding for the Payload ..................................................................... 17 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 19 Appendix A ........................................................................................... 22   Abstract The objective of this work is to design, build, and fly a dual-purpose payload whose function is to produce a large volume, low intensity magnetic field and to test the concept of using such a magnetic field to protect manned spacecraft against particle radiation. An additional mission objective is to study the effect of this moving field on upper atmosphere plasmas. Both mission objectives appear to be capable of being tested using the same superconducting coil. The potential benefits of this magnetic shield concept apply directly to both earth-orbital and interplanetary missions. This payload would be a first step in assessing the true potential of large volume magnetic fields in the U.S. space program. Either converted launch systems or piggyback payload opportunities may be appropriate for this mission. The use of superconducting coils for magnetic shielding against solar flare radiation during manned interplanetary missions has long been contemplated and was considered in detail in the years preceding the Apollo mission. With the advent of new superconductors, it has now become realistic to reconsider this concept for a Mars mission. Even in near-earth orbits, large volume magnetic fields produced using conventional metallic superconductors allow novel plasma physics experiments to be contemplated. Both deployed field-coil and non-deployed field-coil shielding arrangements have been investigated, with the latter being most suitable for an initial test payload in a polar orbit. verview Solar flares produce a significant increase in energetic particle activity in space. Flares typically last from 1 to 100 minutes and release energy in the range of 1029 to 1031 ergs. A full cycle of solar flare activity may last for several days, during which time any humans exposed would receive fatal doses of radiation. Flares may actually accelerate protons to energies approaching 50 GeV. 1 For practical purposes it is more important to consider the full distribution, which for solar flare radiation has an intensity peak between 50 and 100 MeV. As the particles approach the Earth, many get trapped in a band of warm plasma at an altitude between 4 and 10 Earth radii. The particles remain in that band for a short period, during which they dissipate energy and disperse. Geostationary satellites are especially vulnerable to these conditions, since their orbits are typically at an altitude of 6.6 Earth radii. 2 While satellites in low Earth orbit are protected by the Earth's magnetosphere, satellites with orbits having a semi major axis of 42,000 km (i.e.. geostationary) 3 are outside the natural protection afforded by the magnetosphere. Beyond the magnetosphere but in the general vicinity of the Earth, the radiation environment includes solar wind, cosmic rays, energetic ions from the sun, as well as energetic electrons from both the Sun and Jupiter. Solar wind generally does not have a strong effect on satellites, but it does affect the fluctuations of the Earth's magnetic field. Thus, the solar wind can cause violent and unpredictable magnetic storms. 4 In the general vicinity of the Earth, cosmic radiation consists of 83% protons, 13% alpha particles, 1% nuclei with atomic mass greater than 2, and 3% electrons. This combination of particles has an energy range of a few hundred to 1014 MeV. The critical factor of intensity is solar cycle dependent, 5 but the flux is approximately 1/cm2-sec and the dose rate is less than 10 -4 rad/hr.6 Energetic particles are much more powerful; a flux of energetic protons of greater than or equal to 5 MeV from a large solar flare can reach 105/cm2-sec-steradian. The dose rate from such a flare would exceed 100 rads/hr.7 Solar flare radiation would be a major health hazard outside the protection of the magnetosphere. Current manned space missions are at sufficiently low orbits that there is little concern about radiation. Apollo missions, however, which were high enough to encounter this radiation, were run at periods of low solar activity to minimize radiation exposure. 8 Humans traveling on interplanetary missions could not expect to escape the periods of intense energetic particle release which pose life threatening conditions. In addition to magnetic shielding from the Earth, the equivalent of 1000 g/cm 2 of mass shielding is provided by the Earth's atmosphere. 9 Using a pure mass protection concept, a dense material shield of hundredsof grams/cm 2 would be necessary to reduce cosmic ray doses to levels close to Earth surface background. This would also apply to a long-term deployed space station in low earth orbit. Due to the inherent weight restrictions and volume management, mass shielding is clearly impractical for protection against cosmic and galactic proton radiation during interstellar travel. Payload Design The intent of this design project is to develop a feasibility study of a magnetic shielding experiment using a low temperature superconducting coil. The coil will be stationary (i.e.. not deployed), and will be used (1) to protect a given payload volume from incident charged particles, (2) to examine the effects of a magnetic field on radio interference, (3) to examine the microcirculatory effects of passing a large magnet through a terrestrial charged particle environment, and (4) to use the earth's magnetic field to generate a voltage when the superconducting coil goes normal. The basic payload limitations include a maximum weight of 480 pounds, launch into a 100 km earth orbit, and coil superconductivity for sufficient time to achieve the aforementioned experimental objectives. Cryostat Design The cryostat is an essential part of the overall design of the proposed experimental system. In order for the coil to operate at a superconducting state, the temperature of the coil must be maintained at 4.2 K. It is expected that superconductivity will be required for a minimum of 40 hours. The function of the liquid helium cryostat is simply to maintain that temperature for the operational lifetime of the superconducting coil, which would be launched in the persistent field mode. The main limitation for the proposed experiment will be the allowable mass, which imposes considerable design restrictions on cryostat size and concomitant helium capacity. The cryostat will be fabricated from Type 304 stainless steel, with internal insulating layers. The cryostat completely surrounds the coil, which is surrounded by the liquid helium. An outer layer of liquid nitrogen has been considered, but is unnecessary due to the short mission duration. More helium, rather than nitrogen, can thus be used. Additionally, the nitrogen is significantly heavier than the helium. The inner radius of the cryostat will be approximately 5 cm. The cryostat is expected to have a mass of approximately 70 kg. The overall cryostat design is shown in Figure 1, and the cross-section is shown in Figure 2. The mounting and securing hardware is especially important due to the tremendous stresses experienced during launch, as well as the vibrational effects. The use of several mounting plates with "feed-through" design has been chosen for mounting purposes, as shown in Appendix A. Coil Design A number of assumptions have been made regarding the design parameters of the coil. Due to the poor mechanical and electrical properties of current high temperature superconductor Wires, low temperature superconducting wire has been chosen for use in this experiment. Niobium titanium superconducting wire will be employed, which requires cooling to liquid helium temperature. Coil sizing requirements are such that the cross-sectional area ratio of copper sheathing to NbTi be 1.8 to 1, the overall wire diameter is 28 mils, the design current is 320 amperes per wire (as viewed through the cross section), and it is assumed that the wire will weigh 3.77 kg per kilometer. Conservatively, the wire critical current is estimated at 200,000 A/cm 2. For design considerations, it is assumed that the coils will be packed in a hexagonal close packed bundle, with a packing factor of 0.74 (74% of the available space is utilized). One coil is required for the experiment. Due to potential magnetic flux interactions, it is anticipated that the best configuration for the coil design will be a twisted format, with the average twist density being 2 twists per inch. This ensures that eddy currents will not prevail in the coil, causing significant flux difficulty. The intent of the experiment is to protect as much of the payload enclosure as possible from incident radiation, within the design constraints of weight and size. It should be noted that the effective St6rmer radius is actually 40 percent of that calculated using the St/3maer equation. A computer code has been constructed to optimize the coil design based on known parameters. The mathematical basis for the design relies on the St6rmer equation for protected ' dimension, Cst, known as the St6rmer radius. This dimension measures the magnetically protected region, although as previously mentioned complete protection is only afforded to approximately 40% of that characteristic length. The dimension, measured in meters, is found as follows: c_, =J_oM (1) 4_zP where q go = P = M = the particle charge 1.9 x 10 -19 C the permeability of free space 4_ x 10 -7 H/m the relativistic particle momentum (kg.m/s) the magnetic moment (ampere turns, m 2) Given a desired StOrmer radius and momentum of particle to protect from, the magnetic moment can be found from equation 1. In order to determine the required coil mass and the required cryostat mass, the number of turns per coil, n, is found using the following relation: M n = -- (2) iA where i A maximum current per wire 320 A (as specified above) the area enclosed by the loops forming the coil The mass of the coil is thus found as follows: moo. = WCnN (3) where W C = N = mass per unit length of NbTi wire 3.77 x 10 -3 kg/m circumference of coil total number of coils For the purposes of this design feasibility study, the total number of coils is assumed to be one. Then, for a given circumference, the mass of the coil can be determined. The cryostat mass is found in a similar manner: rn_,_o= _CN (4) where _" mass per unit iength of the cryostat 3.4 kg/m Finally, the total mass is that of the coils and cryostat. The cross-sectional area of each coil must be found in order to ensure that the coil can be contained within specified cryostat dimensions. The total cross-sectional area of each coil can be found using the following relation: a_,ireN where atotal = f = cross-sectional area of NbTi wire 3.972 x 10 -7 m packing factor for hcp bundle 0.74 The total cross-sectional radius may then be found as follows: r = _ a'°'o'n (6) For the purposes of this feasibility study, the design parameters have been set as follows. The enclosed area of the coil is 1.829 m 2 yielding a circumference of 6.6 meters. It is desired to fully protect 1.5 meters, and thus the appropriate StOrmer radius of 3.75 meters is specified. The weight to length ratio of the dewar is 10.51 kg/m, providing a total cryostat mass of 70 kg necessary for enclosing the coil. It is thus possible to determine the achievable protection level as a function of cryostat and coil total mass. The linear relationship found between the level of protection afforded and the cryostat/coil mass suggests that the final design of the experiment requires knowledge of the mass of all other components required for the mission. Coil Charging Charging of the superconducting coil will be required to occur prior to experiment launch. Coils of this nature are routinely charged in nuclear magnetic resonance devices, and thus no novel technologies are necessary for this task. Three components are essentially needed: a superconducting switch, a cryostat interface, and a power supply. Basically, the superconducting switch consists of a portion of the superconducting wire which is thermally isolated from the rest of the coil. This portion is connected in parallel and leads to a junction board inside the cryostat. By activating a heater, a resistance is Created in parallel with the main coil. By introducing main current leads across this resistance, the current in the coil can then be ramped up to the desired level. When that current level is reached, the heater is switched off and the current flows unimpeded as the previously heated section of the coil returns to a superconducting state. Additionally, dump resistors may be connected in parallel with the coil, allowing for a more controlled quench and thus absorbing power when the superconducting wire goes normal. When the heater switch is closed, the resistive heater produces power according to the equation So as we can clearly read N.A.S.A. could NEVER do as they said it seems... This is a description of a 'TESLA COIL' with modifications as to the applications of 'Liquid Helium' and the type of steel etc. So this inside of a craft would indeed 'Create' a high magnetic field that would deflect those High radiated particles found within the 'Van Allen Radiation Belts'.. The radiation is so high it would have burnt up any living organism inside any craft... 

Author links open overlay panel   

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2017.11.006   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plants are soft bodied. How do we know that these species existed? Fossil evidence. So we can confirm that despite soft bodied organisms not fossilising well, they exist in abundant numbers from the Cambrian Explosion onwards. Thats science for you. Suddenly multiple organisms , soft bodied and otherwise, appear in the fossil record, and from that time onwards even soft bodied fossils occur. But they did not occur before then. The evidence obviously favors creationism.

 

You are overstating how common soft body fossils are. The vast majority of fossils are of hard parts. Only in exceptional circumstances in specific layers (generally the fine grained lagerstatten such as the Burgess shale) are soft body impressions preserved.

 

If the evidence obviously favoured creationism, as you state, then that evidence would not show us nearly 3 billion years of just prokaryotic life forms before eukaryote first appearance, then a further billion years or so before Ediacaran life in the late Precambrian before recognizable modern phyla appearing in the Cambrian. That we don’t have clear interlinking steps between groups that far back does not somehow mean we must default to creationism. Quite reasonably, considering how much opportunity in that vast time till now for rocks to erode, subduct and metamorphosize, it can be argued that we only have rare, narrow snapshots in time represented by the rocks available, so inevitably we don’t catch what the Ediacaran fauna evolved from or what phyla, if any, they evolved into.

 

Regarding the layering, species radiate out from niche locations when conditions become favorable. Evolutionists see layered groupings of fossils and assume the later ones evolved from the earlier ones. Trilobites radiated out from Siberia when conditions allowed then adapted. I believe the layering is explained by varied conditions, and pre-existing organisms radiate out when conditions become favorable. Of course when ice-caps formed and large land masses became exposed, terrestrial organisms would develop populations on those landmasses. This is an observed phenomenon, that species expand into favorable territories when conditions allow.

 

I’m not following your argument. How does some kind of sequential radiation into favourable habitats explain the faunal succession in the layers in the face of a one year global flood that scoured up the entire Earth’s surface and dumped all the resultant sediment ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A credulity fallacy then a question that presumes the fallacy is sufficient to grant the truth of the thing believed in.

i guess, if you say so.

if we continued that paradigm, valence bonds are meaningless . . . because god did it.

 

I can tell you what causes macro-evolution. Continued neurotic agreement that it's true. The only thing that can cause macro evolution is people since it doesn't actually exist and never did. 

correct, there is no evidence that the boundaries of phyla have been crossed.

one possible explanation is that all possible phlya already exists.

as for the arrival of phyla, it was most certainly a catalytic event.

 

 

I know, and every time you say it I shake my head because like the bible said, the natural man has this capacity to fool himself into believing any answer there is except the true one, which is that God created life.

that may be, but it MUST abide by the physical laws of our universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well spotted New-path, that bit about "rapid diversity". I was going to address that but you spotted that he was inserting a type of diversity into the facts. (essentially making the diversity belong to evolution with the epithet, "rapid"). The true diversity is there, but it's a diversity of intelligently design, in there being many different body plans, so it is misleading for Wibble to call that diversity, "rapid" because then that's question-begging, because it ASSUMES the diversity is something that came from a rapid evolution but as you have said, that is what is missing. In fact the facts only show the diversity and the evolution is conspicuously absent and all Wibble offered for that was a slothful induction of appealing to the 0.00001% evidence he thinks might show some evolution. Evolution is conspicuously absent in the pre-Cambrian just like it generally is throughout the fossil record. I would invite you to read message one of this thread New-Path as there is a simple way to deduce when the absence is conspicuous. Logical notation informs us that a "conspicuous absence" of evidence is actually a strong falsification using the modus tollens rule if there is a high expectation for the evidence to be there but it isn't, and is instead only excused by conjectural excuses; http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6685-missing-transitional-intermediates/ So logically there is no rule saying that this diversity must be caused by evolution, any more than diversity in a scrap yard must be, because like with the scrap yard, we would only be seeing a diversity of design. After all when we look at the Cambrian and we see many bizarre things that walked on legs, there are many different body plans just for that one function of walking, showing that the diversity we are seeing, is the diversity of differing viable designs. All of them are, "whole" as designs, too, in an "era" when we might expect evolutionary experimentation, so to speak, but the truth is everything appears fully designed and mega-complex, even the trilobites eye was one of the most sophisticated there has ever been, at a stage of history when you would expect simpler eyes closer to light-patches, to be evolving. In other words it's not just the missing transitionals, it's that everything we expect of evolution is conspicuously absent, and everything we expect of miraculous design, is present, making design the most parsimonious explanation as you alluded to.

i'm reasonably satisfied that a great deal of evolution can happen within a very short period of time.my question along these lines is, what causes "macro evolution"?also, i am assuming that the cell contains a program, but unlike shapiro i do not believe it possess an intelligence.this "intelligence" is only an artifact of cellular activity, IOW it's the program that makes the cell appear intelligent.can we equate the cell with a computer?instead of printouts and files, the biological computer spits out various lifeforms.

 

"i'm reasonably satisfied that a great deal of evolution can happen within a very short period of time."

 

 

Just to clarify, when you use the duplicitous and purposely ambivalent and vague word "Evolution" in this context, are you referring to a Microbe turning into a Microbiologist? OR are you referring to variation, speciation, adaptation, or DE volution?

 

 

My question along these lines is, what causes "macro evolution"?

 

 

You will find the answer right along with the answers to these questions..

 

(1) What caused Elvis Presley and JFK to still be alive after all of these years?

 

(2) What caused the miraculous preservation of Proteins, Red Blood Cells, and soft tissue in 100 million year old dinosaurs?

 

(3) What caused a self replicating DNA molecule to create itself by accident from dirt air heat and water 3 billion years ago?

 

 

The answer is exactly the same to each and every question..

 

 

 

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms