Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222920 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#107510 Dec 10, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>speaking of tourists out of place...my favorite thing about taking people ice fishing for the first time is when we drill the first hole...
as we drive out on the ice, they seem nervous but they see other trucks and even many ice houses out there and when they get out, they tentatively step on the ice but they seem OK...
but when they see the actual water gushing up out of the hole as we ream the auger up and down, THAT is when they truly realize they are staniding on a lake...and almost always...their first response is to edge nearer to the truck.(cuz that is the safety line that brought them out there and will get them back) but it is by far the heaviest thing out there...
makes me laugh every time...
Found the following and it is just what I remember:

http://silentlistening.wordpress.com/2008/05/...

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#107511 Dec 10, 2013
canser suxs wrote:
Who created the creator if creation is right?
I mean creation theorist say something cant come from nothing so no creator can just always be there.
Maybe there is a super god....but he also would have a creator...Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
There is nothing in quantum physics that says you canít get something form nothing. The very idea of cause and effect as in the second law of thermodynamics (which fundy creations cite) did not begin to coalesce in this universe until after the event of the BB
super guest

United States

#107512 Dec 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>There is nothing in quantum physics that says you can’t get something form nothing. The very idea of cause and effect as in the second law of thermodynamics (which fundy creations cite) did not begin to coalesce in this universe until after the event of the BB
Have you read about the planet, that scientist says is over than the universe. Do you think that new discovery contradicts the BB a little?

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#107513 Dec 10, 2013
super guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read about the planet, that scientist says is over than the universe. Do you think that new discovery contradicts the BB a little?
Nope, there are several possibilities including the estimates of itís age being within the timeframe of this universe 14.5 +/- 0.8 billion years (although stars will not have formed by that time)

However assuming it is older than the universe there are no scientific theories to say this is not possible. In fact cosmologists would see such a entity as providing some proof of theories, and it could account for at least one anomaly in the CMB. It certainly helps confirm the theory of Dr Mersini-Houghton, and there are several others including Andrai Linde and Lee Smolin, at least 27 that show mathematical feasibility.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107514 Dec 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand, itís a stupid argument that surpasses most stupid arguments funnymentalist can come up with. I was trying to consider his arguments logically and thatís where I hit a brick wall.
Humphry Davy invented the electric light bulb in 1800, therefore Davy owns your LED monitor.
What's illogical about that?
super guest

United States

#107515 Dec 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, there are several possibilities including the estimates of it’s age being within the timeframe of this universe 14.5 +/- 0.8 billion years (although stars will not have formed by that time)

However assuming it is older than the universe there are no scientific theories to say this is not possible. In fact cosmologists would see such a entity as providing some proof of theories, and it could account for at least one anomaly in the CMB. It certainly helps confirm the theory of Dr Mersini-Houghton, and there are several others including Andrai Linde and Lee Smolin, at least 27 that show mathematical feasibility.
All 27 can't be right. Eh?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107516 Dec 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, there are several possibilities including the estimates of itís age being within the timeframe of this universe 14.5 +/- 0.8 billion years (although stars will not have formed by that time)
However assuming it is older than the universe there are no scientific theories to say this is not possible. In fact cosmologists would see such a entity as providing some proof of theories, and it could account for at least one anomaly in the CMB. It certainly helps confirm the theory of Dr Mersini-Houghton, and there are several others including Andrai Linde and Lee Smolin, at least 27 that show mathematical feasibility.
First, it's a halo star and not a planet. It is assumed that its lack of heavy elements dates it to "older than the universe", but without knowing where, how and when it was formed and what elements were present, the standard age dating is hypothetical at best.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107517 Dec 10, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
First, it's a halo star and not a planet. It is assumed that its lack of heavy elements dates it to "older than the universe", but without knowing where, how and when it was formed and what elements were present, the standard age dating is hypothetical at best.
I'll be the first to admit the whole concept of "older than the universe" baffles me.

Where would this halo star be, if not IN the universe? And wouldn't that just push back the age of the universe to the formation of this halo star?

"Lucy! You gots some 'splainin' to do!"

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107518 Dec 10, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll be the first to admit the whole concept of "older than the universe" baffles me.
Where would this halo star be, if not IN the universe? And wouldn't that just push back the age of the universe to the formation of this halo star?
"Lucy! You gots some 'splainin' to do!"
I see some problems with the story... just my opinion, of course.
The model for the age of the star assumes that all stellar nurseries are contaminated with heavy elements from earlier supernova remnants. It is the lack of heavier elements that led to the guess that this is (at least similar to) a first generation star. There are scenarios in which a star could be formed from hydrogen and helium that is not significantly contaminated with heavier elements, and there is the further complication in that HD 140283 is a giant. Giants are not postulated to live long lives because they burn through fuel faster than smaller stars.
Incidentally, that there is more than one of these older than old stars, indicates that the dating process should be revisited.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107519 Dec 10, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I see some problems with the story... just my opinion, of course.
The model for the age of the star assumes that all stellar nurseries are contaminated with heavy elements from earlier supernova remnants. It is the lack of heavier elements that led to the guess that this is (at least similar to) a first generation star. There are scenarios in which a star could be formed from hydrogen and helium that is not significantly contaminated with heavier elements, and there is the further complication in that HD 140283 is a giant. Giants are not postulated to live long lives because they burn through fuel faster than smaller stars.
Incidentally, that there is more than one of these older than old stars, indicates that the dating process should be revisited.
Not having read the original story, I appreciate your outline above. Makes a bit more sense to me now (i.e., lack of heavier elements comprising the planet/1st generation/etc).

Still not satisfied with this star/planet/whatever being "*OLDER* than the universe", though.

Either they've found something that is outside of the universe, or they've changed the definition of the word "universe" to exclude this particular object.

Neither seems plausible.

That's where my disconnect is.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107520 Dec 10, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Not having read the original story, I appreciate your outline above. Makes a bit more sense to me now (i.e., lack of heavier elements comprising the planet/1st generation/etc).
Still not satisfied with this star/planet/whatever being "*OLDER* than the universe", though.
Either they've found something that is outside of the universe, or they've changed the definition of the word "universe" to exclude this particular object.
Neither seems plausible.
That's where my disconnect is.
You can think of the halo star as being akin to a galactic comet. http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/BrauImNew...
It is not fixed in relation to the galactic center, but instead has a relatively high velocity. Since they can't definitely backtrack it and say it was born in this nebula or that, it's origin is something of a mystery. This just adds to the error of speculating its age as predating the CMBR. The only disconnect comes from defending the present system of dating the age of certain stars when faced with an apparent anomaly - which isn't one.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#107521 Dec 10, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll be the first to admit the whole concept of "older than the universe" baffles me.
Where would this halo star be, if not IN the universe? And wouldn't that just push back the age of the universe to the formation of this halo star?
"Lucy! You gots some 'splainin' to do!"
If the universe us cyclic , then there would be things that existed before this one. CCC conformal cyclic cosmology.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107522 Dec 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
If the universe us cyclic , then there would be things that existed before this one. CCC conformal cyclic cosmology.
(Dude scans vicinity for signs of Mikey activity)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107523 Dec 10, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny!
(No, not that one)

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107524 Dec 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand, itís a stupid argument that surpasses most stupid arguments funnymentalist can come up with. I was trying to consider his arguments logically and thatís where I hit a brick wall.
Its the perfect Creationist argument. Chas just keeps repeating his stupidity over and over no matter how much logic and evidence you bring to the table, and everyone gets riled up, and at some point in the "debate" Charlie cues to camera, looks straight into the lens and says, "See, you can tell I am right, because my argument has completely upset the opposition and they have no more answers, look how unbalanced they are by my statement of TRUTH".

That is how moron debate works. And they don't care how many people who know better laugh at them, they just need enough morons to accept their premise and then they can sell books and seminars forever.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#107525 Dec 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Humphry Davy invented the electric light bulb in 1800, therefore Davy owns your LED monitor.
What's illogical about that?
Electroluminescence was discovered at Marconi Labs in 1907 and the first LED was invented in Russia in 1927, nothing to do with light bulbs

So what is illogical about that? only logic and fact.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#107526 Dec 11, 2013
super guest wrote:
<quoted text>
All 27 can't be right. Eh?
In an infinite infinity everything can be right Ė eh?

In this universe it is not known if any are right, only that mathematically all are feasible.

Note that is not an excuse to say ďdoh! science dun know wot dun it so it mus be my god wot dun it by magicĒ

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#107527 Dec 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
First, it's a halo star and not a planet. It is assumed that its lack of heavy elements dates it to "older than the universe", but without knowing where, how and when it was formed and what elements were present, the standard age dating is hypothetical at best.
Oh did I say it was a planet? Let me look, nope not me

As techniques have advanced so the estimated age has been revised and the dating of HD140283 is currently estimated at 14.5 billion years +/- 0.8 billion years.

This could bring it within the Hubble calculation for the age of this universe, forming within the first 100 million years after the BB event although it is doubtful that stars could form within the first 200 million years of the life of this universe. The elements that formed these early stars was hydrogen, a little helium and even less lithium so if the star is as old as estimated then itís starting elements were known. However given itís ďestimated ageĒ it was either originally extremely massive or itís burn rate extremely slow.

Or it could be older.

If it actually is older than the universe then it helps to substantiate any of the multiple universe theories along with the unusual bruised areas of the CMB and the corresponding areas of universe moving differently to the general expansion. The example I have heard is that, say our early universe collided with on older universe it is possible that matter could have been transferred between the two.

Or it could be younger

If so perhaps there is a need more accurate dating methods of both stars and the age of the universe before any firm conclusions are reached

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#107528 Dec 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its the perfect Creationist argument. Chas just keeps repeating his stupidity over and over no matter how much logic and evidence you bring to the table, and everyone gets riled up, and at some point in the "debate" Charlie cues to camera, looks straight into the lens and says, "See, you can tell I am right, because my argument has completely upset the opposition and they have no more answers, look how unbalanced they are by my statement of TRUTH".
That is how moron debate works. And they don't care how many people who know better laugh at them, they just need enough morons to accept their premise and then they can sell books and seminars forever.
That the typical fundy way but I am not so easy to rile up and I do enjoy using fact and logic to show them their stupidity. Even if they ignore fact and logic, it still gives me some pleasure

This includes, as you so rightly indicated, their misuse of the word ďTRUTHĒ capitalised to distinguish it from real truthful truth. I hear they have even invented a new word ďtruthinessĒ(no need to capitalise) that means what they think is true as opposed to what is actually true.

Another word they abuse is morality, earlier this week I saw a fundy say ďthere is no such thing as human moralityĒ and indicated that the only moral people were godbots who thought in exactly the same way as him.

To me, that usage of the word indicates a complete lack in the understanding of the word but hey, christards have been stealing since day one so what should we expect after 2000 years of practice?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#107529 Dec 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
First, it's a halo star and not a planet. It is assumed that its lack of heavy elements dates it to "older than the universe", but without knowing where, how and when it was formed and what elements were present, the standard age dating is hypothetical at best.
May be leftover from the last universe...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 5 min SweLL GirL 17,808
Word Association (Mar '10) 6 min SweLL GirL 22,682
Change-one-of-six-letters (Oct '15) 7 min SweLL GirL 128
Why Do White People Start Stuff They Canít Fini... 17 min Boinkface 36
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 19 min Crazy Jae 21,102
Does anyone remember? (Apr '13) 20 min Crazy Jae 1,763
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 40 min Denny CranesPlace 28,849
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Naturally Wired 224,369
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 3 hr Boinkface 6,421
News FAA looking after pilot drops turkeys on Arkans... 5 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 22
More from around the web