Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173530 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.

“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.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#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

Birkenhead, 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

Birkenhead, 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, it’s a stupid argument that surpasses most stupid arguments funnymentalist can come up with. I was trying to consider his arguments logically and that’s 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.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#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.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#107526 Dec 11, 2013
super guest wrote:
<quoted text>
All 27 can't be right. Eh?
In an infinite infinity everything can be right – 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 “doh! science dun know wot dun it so it mus be my god wot dun it by magic”

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#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 it’s starting elements were known. However given it’s “estimated age” it was either originally extremely massive or it’s 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

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#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 “TRUTH” capitalised to distinguish it from real truthful truth. I hear they have even invented a new word “truthiness”(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 “there is no such thing as human morality” 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...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107530 Dec 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
===whoosh

<sigh> never mind. You're right - English belongs to France.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107531 Dec 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh did I say it was a planet? Let me look, nope not me
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
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 it’s starting elements were known. However given it’s “estimated age” it was either originally extremely massive or it’s 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
According to current models, the more massive the star, the shorter its lifespan - not longer. The star's unusual velocity and trajectory give clues that it was not formed in or by usual avenues, but that doesn't AT ALL indicate that it is a visitor from another universe anymore than you are... uh, back up.. scratch that. The point is that before seeking extraordinary conclusions, one should rule out ordinary causes. This has not been done.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#107532 Dec 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>===whoosh
<sigh> never mind. You're right - English belongs to France.
I was there with you, I was simply given an example of the futility of the argument, sorry you didn’t understand

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#107533 Dec 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
<quoted text>
According to current models, the more massive the star, the shorter its lifespan - not longer. The star's unusual velocity and trajectory give clues that it was not formed in or by usual avenues, but that doesn't AT ALL indicate that it is a visitor from another universe anymore than you are... uh, back up.. scratch that. The point is that before seeking extraordinary conclusions, one should rule out ordinary causes. This has not been done.
Nope as I said, I mentioned no planet there, Here let me do a copy and paste of that post to compliment your link

Quote
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.
Endquote

I see ‘universe’ and ‘entity’, I see ‘CMB’ and I see ‘stars’, no planets. Ahh, I see your confusion now,“super guest” wrote “Have you read about the planet,” so it seems you were blaming the wrong persons, glad that’s sorted out now

According to most theories (not all) of how the BB occurred it is not extraordinary for other universes to exist, In cosmology the ordinary may be extraordinary, the point is that all avenues need to be explored until a satisfactory (and valid) explanation is found, if one can be found.

Here - browse the faculty members and take a look at some of the recent publications - http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/res...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107534 Dec 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I was there with you, I was simply given an example of the futility of the argument, sorry you didn’t understand
No worries, I understood. I was offering a parallel to the absurdity of ald englisc speakers "owning" the largest modern language - both of which are unintelligible to each other. Like Chuckie (and other religies), I wasn't alluding to any logic or accuracy.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107535 Dec 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope as I said, I mentioned no planet there, Here let me do a copy and paste of that post to compliment your link
Quote
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.
Endquote
I see ‘universe’ and ‘entity’, I see ‘CMB’ and I see ‘stars’, no planets. Ahh, I see your confusion now,“super guest” wrote “Have you read about the planet,” so it seems you were blaming the wrong persons, glad that’s sorted out now
According to most theories (not all) of how the BB occurred it is not extraordinary for other universes to exist, In cosmology the ordinary may be extraordinary, the point is that all avenues need to be explored until a satisfactory (and valid) explanation is found, if one can be found.
Here - browse the faculty members and take a look at some of the recent publications - http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/res...
I wan't blaming you for super guest's ignorance - I was pointing it out.
As far as parallel universes and the halo star, it's still far, FAR more likely that it formed through slow accretion in a (relatively) dense gas cloud that was heavy element poor and slung either by a rogue or a trinary dance into the galaxy proper.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#107536 Dec 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I wan't blaming you for super guest's ignorance - I was pointing it out.
As far as parallel universes and the halo star, it's still far, FAR more likely that it formed through slow accretion in a (relatively) dense gas cloud that was heavy element poor and slung either by a rogue or a trinary dance into the galaxy proper.
We are going to have to hone our communication skills, the confusion arose when you implied by posting to me “First, it's a halo star and not a planet.” That I had said it was a planet and then later by linking to the same post in which I did not say it was a planet.

Yes it is more likely, but not the only likelihood. The mathematical and quantum probabilities that other universes exist outweigh the probability of a single universe – it does makes a mockery of the meaning of the word.

At the time it is estimated HD140283 was formed the entire universe was heavy element poor. Heavier elements would not form until those first stars began to die.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107537 Dec 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
We are going to have to hone our communication skills, the confusion arose when you implied by posting to me “First, it's a halo star and not a planet.” That I had said it was a planet and then later by linking to the same post in which I did not say it was a planet.
Yes it is more likely, but not the only likelihood. The mathematical and quantum probabilities that other universes exist outweigh the probability of a single universe – it does makes a mockery of the meaning of the word.
At the time it is estimated HD140283 was formed the entire universe was heavy element poor. Heavier elements would not form until those first stars began to die.
SG posted, you posted, I posted. shrug.
The only evidence that the star is near primordial/first generation is that it is heavy element poor - it does not follow that the star must therefore have been formed when the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was heavy element poor. That is inverse logic, so the offered time and conditions of HD140283's "birth" is rightly contested. You cannot use that contested time and environment as positive evidence of that hypothetical time and (universal) conditions. That would be a close logical fallacy to, "the Bible says it's true so it is true."

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107538 Dec 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
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 “TRUTH” capitalised to distinguish it from real truthful truth. I hear they have even invented a new word “truthiness”(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 “there is no such thing as human morality” 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?
If you read some of the ancients like Seneca, you will be amazed at how modern and rational - in a way, timeless - they sound.

And they speak of morality in the terms that existed after the old Gods were not taken seriously but before the new "God" was imposed on the ancient world. In other words, one of those brief periods in history when men's minds were freed from religious dogma.

Their morality is awesome, and totally human.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#107539 Dec 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
SG posted, you posted, I posted. shrug.
The only evidence that the star is near primordial/first generation is that it is heavy element poor - it does not follow that the star must therefore have been formed when the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was heavy element poor. That is inverse logic, so the offered time and conditions of HD140283's "birth" is rightly contested. You cannot use that contested time and environment as positive evidence of that hypothetical time and (universal) conditions. That would be a close logical fallacy to, "the Bible says it's true so it is true."
Yes a lot of posting over bs that I did not post but never mind

Nope not inverse logic, just a basic knowledge of the timeline of the universe

Contested? Questioned? This is science we are talking about and not written in tablets of stone and I am not using anything as positive evidence, I have offered 3 completely distinct possibilities. Following your post it is also possible that the star is relatively young and was born in a quiet and heavy element light (yes I did say that) part of the universe, if such a place exists after the first few million years of universe evolution. Judging by the composition and age calculations of millions of stars that have been analysed then it is a minutely small possibility.

The only thing that is absolutely sure is – no one knows.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min anguish 169,329
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 19 min Camilla 2,450
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 28 min NotaGoth 141,503
News Sales of unearthed Atari games total over US$10... 37 min Fundie Fatwass De... 1
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 43 min SweLL GirL 5,126
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 50 min Krypteia 43,503
News Oddity and weird item auction scheduled for Sun... 55 min Fundie Fatwass De... 1
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 hr Enzo49 29,703
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr TALLYHO 8541 18,659
News Bizarre werewolf muzzle turns even the cutest d... 2 hr Lucy 5
More from around the web